I want to use a browser engine that is not developed/owned by Google, so I use Firefox. I also don't want to support Brave's CEO's politics, so I would not use Brave regardless.
FWIW I did not see a cookie modal. Most likely it was blocked by uBlock Origin's Annoyances filters. You should give it a try, it fixes a lot of this crap.
I completely agree. With so many high profile cases of people suffering from some form of dementia being elected to important offices (McConnell and Feinstein; Biden and Trump), it's clear that the intended electoral mechanism isn't working to replace people who are not fit to serve. Name recognition & incumbency advantage are just too strong to allow the right thing to happen.
The version of the fix that I like is, if you would be 65 or older on the day you would begin holding the office, you are ineligible to be in the election or the appointment process. This gives some room for acknowledging that there isn't a clear cut-off where one immediately becomes unfit to serve. If you're a healthy 64, you can serve all the way to 70 for an office with a lengthy term; but if you're going soft at 65, then you don't need to make the difficult decision of whether or not to run. The decision has been made for you, way ahead of time, and you can make plans to retire and support a successor, avoiding a really nasty, personal primary process.
This would have nicely avoided Biden's awkward "will he, won't he" decision that led to the 2024 disaster we're still suffering from. Feinstein & McConnell would have retired well before their brains transformed into cottage cheese, turning them into jokes and destroying whatever legacies they worked to build. It's better for everyone.
Characterizing the problem as the electoral mechanism, wouldn't it make sense to push for better voting systems that don't empower the two party duopoly (eg Ranked Pairs) ?
It feels that while gerontocracy is a valid critique to illustrate the problem, it doesn't fully capture why our processes actively choose such bad leaders. Rather it kind of papers over the problem assuming that mental faculties mean good policies [0], give us a comforting thought that most of the recent relevant candidates would have been out of the picture, while not actually addressing the "shit sandwich vs turd torta" dynamic.
As for the Senate itself, I'd propose increasing the number of senators to 6 per state to dilute this effect of a strong senator being a boon to state regardless of how bad their politics are. Perhaps straight term limits for the Senate and the House as well.
[0] while it certainly means better policies than what we have now, the bar is currently on the floor.
I don't think a form of RCV would have a terribly significant impact on name recognition and incumbent advantage, which I think the are the main drivers of why we keep reelecting people who are obviously no longer competent. Feinstein's walking corpse being constantly reelected despite California having jungle primaries with many viable alternatives is a good example of how an alternate voting method does not solve this problem. It also wouldn't fix appointed positions, especially judges or filling vacated seats.
There are other great reasons to change our voting system! I just think it doesn't solve this exact problem, while an upper age limit does.
Maybe the problem is structural: there is an absurd amount of power to be gained by seniority in both houses. To a voter there is a significant advantage to choosing an incumbent as their power increase with seniority.
I'd say that a large part of incumbent advantage is directly related to plurality. I don't know the specific details of the elections that have kept Feinstein propped up. But I'd think the primary would revolve around a bunch of challengers that are each really liked by some people, but really hated by others - so Feinstein ends up getting the defensive vote from people who don't want change towards the popular challengers. Then the general election has the same effect, plus all the people that already "made their choice" in the primary.
Very early in the first Bitcoin boom cycle I had a friend who was into it, so I opened a Coinbase account because I thought it'd be funny to pay him the $15 I owed him for lunch or whatever in Bitcoin. I bought the $15 on a credit card, sent it to his wallet, we had our laughs about it, and I moved on. Years later, after it became clear that the only purpose of cryptocurrencies is scams & crime, I went to close my Coinbase account just for some basic digital hygiene. Except I found out that now, they only let you log in if you have an external bank account associated with your Coinbase account. And you can't delete your account without logging in. And there's no way in hell I'm associating my real bank account with a scam & crime agency. So I'm stuck with a Coinbase account I can't close or even log in to. Lol.
There's a law for that. If Coinbase did not require an external bank account to create the coinbase account, by law, they cannot require one to close the account.
At least, that is what I have been led to believe. You could sue.
I have to admit I'm always baffled by these "you could sue over this trivial matter" replies. Do you think lawsuits cost no time or money? Obviously I'm not going to do that.
You’re giving legal advice based upon something you were lead to believe. That’s the first problem. The second problem is that proving damages would be difficult. The third is that you’re operating in a pay to play justice system.
For what it's worth my Coinbase account, which I've never used for anything but sign up bonuses, seems to be linked to Google Pay but not a bank account. I just checked and I can still log in.
> Can Spotify actually become human- and artist-first?
No, it can't. Its founder Daniel Ek is a war profiteer. He is by definition anti-human.
Spotify itself is actively anti-artist. It has the lowest pay rates in the industry and is embracing AI replacing humans so they can pay humans even less.
Stop using it and vote with your wallet. Literally any alternative you choose is an improvement for artists over Spotify.
> Literally any alternative you choose is an improvement
Counterintuitive to me would be (1) not listening at all, or (2) torrenting.
I suppose choosing (1) means Spotify has less leverage over the artist, but to the detriment of the artist since they don’t get that fraction of a cent. Additionally, that also means one less pair of ears discovering the artist.
I suppose at least with torrenting the discovery aspect is preserved.
Big Bandcamp fan, I get almost all my music from there. But their AI removal (well, or piracy removal for that matter) is rather lacking. Any action takes over a week, sometimes more. Just like with clear piracy (pre release leaks have been up for months), and when they do, they just remove it, whoever bought it is out of luck.
They have been great for what I use them for, occasion niche discoveries, but I'm not sure they replace Spotify for the "hop in my car and my favorite mainstream hits begin playing without having to think too hard about it" use case.
It certainly was, but unfortunately FM radio has gotten pretty awful around me (which I find strange because we are in a fairly densely populated area).
The only thing I listen to on the radio regularly are baseball games.
It's trending in that direction. If you want genuine conversation with humans, it's best to start looking for small, private communities that have and enforce LLM policies that align with your desires. Public social media is universally trash, don't waste your time there. I think HN is still worth visiting for now, but it's getting harder to justify spending time here with the quantity of garbage-quality LLM articles and even many comments.
> HN is still worth visiting, but it's getting harder to justify spending time here
I feel the same. Quality of both submissions and discussions have considerable decreased. It is still the best general purpose “aggregator” I know of, but it is not what it was. It is becoming more and more FotM hype and boring group-think.
HN was great due to the breadth of unique, interesting, nerdy topics, most of which I would have never come across on my own; and the insightful thought-provoking commentary, often by insiders with unique insights and perspectives.
Now it is just the same LLM agentic coding harness hype cycle astroturfing 100x engineer 37k LoC/day BS I could get from Reddit or LinkedIn or Twitter or anywhere else.
The moderators are still doing a fantastic job though! I feel like that is the last big differentiator from just being orange Reddit.
I dunno, it's tough. I hesitate to say HN is "getting worse," even if I agree with that in my gut. I think that gives rose-tinted glasses and nostalgia-bait. Rather, I think the community is refocusing around something that I find uninteresting. If you find LLM output to be dull, as I do, it's less and less a place for you to be. I try to push the community in more interesting directions by upvoting articles with actual technical content, but yeah it's being drowned out by the ho-hum LLM output that I'm not interested in, and that means I want to be here less.
I could not agree more. I feel the exact same, its just a ton of content here that might not necessarily be "worse" I just find it (LLMs) dreadfully boring uninteresting. Lobste.rs seems to be nicer so I lurk there a lot now as I can't post.
I think it's a trend in the industry though. Engineering is known as a moneymaker and so a large part of the new generation is the kind of person that decades ago would have gone for finance as a profession.
Both the really old timey graybeard techies and the green haired alternative techie communities are reducing in numbers.
Since crypto and later LLM it got to its current state, everyone is trying to promote their stuff, sometimes in many covert ways, again, when money gets into anything it ruins it, same happened to YT and other sites.
I don't think it's exclusive to young people, no. I'm a couple years older than you. All of my friends also hate it and make fun of it. Like some of the people in the article, I'm also looking to get out of the tech industry and find something else to do other than be forced to talk to shitty robots. If they want to fire me for not using their crappy tech enough, fine. I don't care anymore.
reply