Stories like this probably scare some people off from electronic voting but I don't think this is that big of a deal. When we finish voting operations in my area we load the ballots up on someone's personal vehicle and they take them down, securely, to where they need to go. That vehicle could get blown up and those ballots could be gone, though I think we could still get a record of the results.
That being said for the United States, I am in favor of in-person voting requiring proof of citizenship, and making "voting day" a paid national holiday. Not so much for technical or efficiency reasons but for social reasons. I'd argue it should be mandatory but I don't think we should force people to do anything we don't have to force them to do, and I'm not sure we want disinterested people voting anyway.
Exercising democracy, requiring people to put in a minimal amount of thought and effort goes a long way. It should be a celebratory day with cookies and apple pie and free beer for all. Not some cold, AI-riddled, stay in your house and never meet your neighbors, clicking a few buttons to accept the Terms of Democracy process.
I know there's a lot of discussion points around "efficiency" or "cost" or "accessibility" or how difficult it supposedly is to have an ID (which is weird when you look at how other countries run elections) and there are certainly things to discuss there, but by and large I think the continued digitalization and alienation of Americans is a much worse problem that can be addressed with more in-person activities and participation in society. We're losing too many touchpoints with reality.
> That being said, I am in favor of in-person voting requiring proof of citizenship
I think this is fine if it also then means that obtaining a qualifying ID is treated as a no-cost and highly-accessible right for all citizens.
This is where such arguments tend to get stuck in the US. If you require proof of citizenship, but also have places where getting to a government office to get such an ID is difficult or expensive, then you are effectively restricting voting access for citizens. A measure to place stricter qualifications on voting access needs to also carefully consider and account for providing access to all citizens.
The US is a geographically very large place with worse public transportation options compared to many other countries, and with that comes differences in economic and accessibility considerations for things like "Just go to your county's office and get a qualifying ID."
> but also have places where getting to a government office to get such an ID is difficult or expensive
Where in the US do you find it's difficult for people to get an ID? Where is it not? What percentage of the population has an ID in a place where it's difficult to get one vs somewhere it is easier?
What constitutes an ID being expensive?
Nearly every country in the world requires proof of citizenship to vote. How is the rest of the world dealing with this problem? Do you think that their democratic processes might be compromised because of it?
Proof of citizenship is not the same as the driver's licenses people are issued by their state.
Not everyone has ready access to proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. It gets even more difficult if your current legal name doesn't match your birth name, e.g. if you took your husband's name.
Not every eligible voter has or needs a government issued ID. For example, retired people who don't drive. For them to get to the DMV to get an ID just to vote would be a challenge.
The US has large rural areas where government offices are hours away.
All of this adds up to significant barriers to eligible voters. There's a reason even the GOP isn't bending over backward to pass the SAVE Act.
> What percentage of the population has an ID in a place where it's difficult to get one vs somewhere it is easier?
Not the OP, but except for passports (and passport cards)... there isn't really any federal-level ID in the US (and passport booklets/cards are expensive, just a bit over $100 IIRC).
The nearest equivalent in the state level are driver's licenses, which are also on the expensive side considering the ancillary costs (because it's a driver's license, not just an identification card). This is also the reason why US-centric companies like PayPal, for this exact reason, accepts a driver's license as proof of identification (obviously where not otherwise prohibited by local laws).
Some (New York for example) do have an ID (called a non-DL ID, that's how embedded driver's license is in the US), but most states do not have a per se ID.
> What constitutes an ID being expensive?
Developing countries, rather ironically, issue their IDs for free? Okay, indirectly paid by taxes, but there's no upfront cost. The above-mentioned identity documents have a clear cost attached to them.
> How is the rest of the world dealing with this problem? Do you think that their democratic processes might be compromised because of it?
Cannot talk about other countries (because there is an ID system and it's not a controversial affair to them), but instead I'll answer with a reflection of the US system.
Unfortunately, American ID politics are hard, mainly due to concerns of surveillance, but I think (only my opinion) because some of them want those historically disenfranchised (even if a fully native-born US citizen) de facto disenfranchised. This means that there is no uniform and freely-issued identification system in the US (or even a requirement to do that at the state level). Unfortunately, this... is a tough nut to crack, politically-speaking.
The person I used to stay with when I used to visit WV don't have a proof of citizenship. He doesn't know where his birth certificate is (probably with the US army if they kept track of their nurses giving birth on ex-allied territory during a war), and get by with is SSN and driver license.
How it works in my country : my electoral card is freely sent to my address when I register to my voting office. I can vote with it, or with an official ID, as long as I'm in the correct place. The only moment I need my ID is to cast a vote on behalf of someone who identified me as a 'surrogate'.
Pretty much every bill that has ever been put forward for needing an ID to vote has had a provision for free IDs. That’s not where things get caught up.
Also, it’s a pretty silly thing anyways. I don’t even drink and I still need my driver’s license quite a few times every year.
In the US, a driver license isn't a proof of citizenship. Also, state IDs are not accepted by federal agencies, so it probably wouldn't work as proof of citizenship on federal elections.
I think a lot of what you argue might make sense for American elections where you're voting for an absolutely ridiculous number of things.
I'm not sure how it is in Switzerland, but in Canada I will vote for maybe three candidates in five years. And I don't mean three visits to the polls (though it's usually that), I mean three actual checkbox ticks for people to count. They're paper ballots and the counting is done that night. I think if we were stuck voting for like forty different races every two years it would be a very different story and a lot of what you say would resonate with me more. Except the voter registration stuff.
We're pretty flexible about registration up here and it works. My wife one year showed up with some mail that had her name/address, and me vouching for her. Though I think a lot of the luxuries of democracy are most easily enjoyed with a trusting, cooperative culture that isn't constantly wound up about being cheated by the others.
In Switzerland I voted last week for 5 election lists and 6 different topics. This happens at least 4 times a year, but I don't call it "ridiculous number of things".
For the voter that may not be a ton of work. I imagine to count all those votes you need technology and not just the election workers at each station? Here we have kept it dead simple. They’re all just hand counted over a few hours.
Please realize that Switzerland holds many votes per year. There is no big voting day where I have to go somewhere. I could go cast my ballot in person, but I can also fill out and send in my ballot in advance. That is entirely routine and part of my day like other paperwork.
The problem with e-voting is that it is much harder to validate. My paper ballot rests at a community building where it will be counted on the day of the vote. I can understand the process from start to finish in physical terms. Throw in a USB stick and anything could happen. It is possible we will never know what went wrong here.
I've lived in 3 states and none of them have required proof of citizenship to register to vote. You basically check a box that acknowledges that you are a US Citizen with the right to vote and that illegal registration carries penalties.
In the United States at least, voter registration will include your place of residence which will place you in a specific precinct. In other words: "I am so and so, and I live here. Votes that affect this area include me, and I get a say."
When voters are voting for things, for example a tax levy to fund a new school, or for who will be their state or federal congressional representatives, it's important that the voters in that school district or in that congressional district are the ones voting for their representatives or for the bills or initiatives that affect them. This isn't quite as important for national elections, gubernatorial races, or for the senate at the federal level, but it's obviously incredibly important the more local you get.
Without voter registration, that model breaks down. Even mundane things like how much staff and equipment should be at a polling location is not easy to figure out when you don't know how many voters you'll have. If you haven't worked as a poll worker it's really enlightening to learn about how the process works and a great way to meet your neighbors.
F-15E Strike Eagles have advanced avionics and can and continue to use advanced missiles. They can serve in multiple roles including target identification, aerial combat, and of course air-to-air interception and ground attack roles.
Same thing with the F-18.
Eventually of course all of these weapons platforms will be phased out, but for the time being they are still extremely useful, and even more so after the more advanced aircraft and other attack vectors have taken out or limited air defense capabilities or the ability for enemy aircraft to intercept these aircraft. Not that they can't handle their own, anyway.
Do they? If they shot down 3 friendly aircraft that would be a catastrophically stupid mistake which would imply they are, in fact, not that sharp (or at least this specific unit and chain of command).
> The F-22 program only has two air to air kills in its whole history
A very poor comparison point given that the F-22 has had limited opportunities for engagement. And just a poor comparison overall.
Yep. Spot on. And the reason you know this is true is because the arguments about increasing prices for customers due to App Store fees, which is one of the primary arguments, once removed does not result in price reductions for customers.
It's just big billion dollar corporations deciding on who keeps what cut.
I'm hardly a fan of Epic, but considering inflation and rising supply chain costs, a price that remains flat may be a price that would have otherwise risen.
They might also direct the money towards funding more exclusives. Epic's funding has enabled some games to be made that wouldn't have been otherwise, or that wouldn't have been as full featured without that up-front cash.
They sell gambling to children via lootboxes; I'm not saying they're the good guy corp. But removing Apple and Google's monopoly over phone apps and app stores would only be a good thing, in my opinion.
Sure but it's not just Epic. I've seen other services, ranging from Netflix to Spotify increase subscription prices.
I don't disagree with your point about inflation, but we also can't really run the counterfactual, and I'm personally not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here. As an aside we generally have some level of inflation and so while this argument may have been more convincing during a period of rapid inflation, it becomes less convincing over time.
I think the reality is these services have massive margins and so there was never any intent on the part of Epic at least, to lower prices. It was always to just capture more value for their company. I don't blame them for doing that, I just find the "we're the good guys" approach to be suspicious at best.
Apple's monopoly (because I have an iPhone) has been of incredible value to me so I prefer that the monopoly continue to exist. As we remove that monopoly I see more consumer harm done than good.
> considering inflation and rising supply chain costs
I just can't for the life of me figure out where this money goes. People bought the same type of things 10 years ago, and the cost now isn't proportional to the cost 10 years ago.
I think they very intentionally assume folks are not running VMs or doing much more than "every day" tasks. Given the pre-packaged E-Waste sold at most retailers for a similar price (or more) I think this is a really fantastic market move by Apple. This is doubly true as I read weirder and weirder things that Microsoft is doing with respect to Windows 12 and, well, in general.
<I think this is a really fantastic market move by Apple. ...as I read weirder and weirder things that Microsoft is doing with respect to Windows 12>
I think this may well be what Apple is thinking! I've only ever purchased an Apple laptop, that was refurbished, because of the, what I consider, too high pricing for their lineup of really nice laptops. (I'm not bad mouthing Apple, I'm just cheap.) IMO, if Win 12 is as bad as what some are thinking, a lot of people will switch to Apple who may be afraid of Linux. (I'm referring to folks like me who normally use a computer for the normal stuff and some semi-lite gaming.)
The Neo pricing is usually my ceiling price for a Windows laptop, so I'll be watching the reviews and HN to see I if want to purchase one. Very exciting!
Nothing is stopping you from investing in a company, or putting your money into a stock or other investment. If anything, over the years the club has become a lot less exclusive. When did Carlin say that? Think about how much more access any given person, at least in the United States, has to financial products.
Right, just like all of those people who put their money into Brewdog and then got nothing for it, while the larger investors potentially got made whole. It's almost like there's two classes of investors or something - common people, and then another smaller set - a club, say - that the common people are not part of.
You do not have access to the investments or financial instruments that the ultrawealthy do. Your investments are not like their investments, your returns are not their returns, the rules and regulations you face are not the ones they face. They are playing a different game than you, even when they're doing it with your money.
> Right, just like all of those people who put their money into Brewdog and then got nothing for it
Just like anyone who puts their money into an investment that fails... Stocks go up, stocks go down. I don't recall the exact details of the Brewdog investment scheme but some people losing their hat here is just a normal thing that happens in capital markets, otherwise investing wouldn't work. There's a reason that the predominant advice is to just set it and forget it with S&P 500 funds or total market (US or global) funds. It's up to you as an independent person to identify good opportunities for yourself or to consume and understand advice.
> You do not have access to the investments or financial instruments that the ultrawealthy do. Your investments are not like their investments, your returns are not their returns, the rules and regulations you face are not the ones they face. They are playing a different game than you, even when they're doing it with your money.
This is directionally true and angsty but it's beside the point. What's the alternative? Nobody gets to invest in anything?
While "the wealthy" have access to other opportunities that you don't have access to, you still have access to enough opportunities to make money.
Neither George Carlin nor I am saying that the average person cannot invest in companies, nor that they should not be able to (well, I'm not, at least).
We are both saying that the rules and conditions under which you and I invest in companies and the market are substantially different than those in which the ultrawealthy invest in the market, and ours carry both higher risks and more onerous terms. You can argue whatever you want about why that is or whether it should be, but we're not all on a level playing field, and that's relevant especially in an era when all of the answers to "how do I make myself secure against the vicissitudes of fate" involve "investing" in the market.
Nobody is on a level playing field, nor should they be.
> and ours carry both higher risks and more onerous terms
Can you speak to your experience in investing? I’ve invested in both public and private market deals. There’s nothing safer in my mind than low-cost index funds which are as accessible as running water for all Americans. $1 and a Robinhood account or something are all you need. Granted you can get higher returns of course in private markets but to suggest in general that they are both less risky and higher returning sounds inaccurate to me.
I’m not trying to discredit your underlying point, the ultra wealthy do have access to better terms. They have more capital to deploy - it provides similar scaling discounts to other volume-based businesses.
No equity holders got anything out of the liquidation - whether big or small [1]. Preference shares are just as worthless as common stock if there isn’t enough money to cover debt, tax bills, employee statuary entitlements/outstanding pay, bank loans, etc.
> No equity holders got anything out of the liquidation - whether big or small
This statement is not supported by the link you posted, nor any other reporting I've seen on the matter. What I have seen is that TSG is senior to all of the other equity holders, so if there's money to be had, they're getting it before the small holders.
Also from your link:
> TSG was promised an 18% compound return on its investment (which means the amount they’re owed grows by 18% each year, with each year building on the last).
> TSG’s preference shares entitle it to an 18% compound return on its £213 million investment. That return has snowballed over time. By 2024, it had grown to around £801 million.
I can't say for sure, but I don't believe those terms were available to the average investor.
Yeah, but TSG paid in 213 million and is (at max, assuming there are no creditors to pay, which seems unlikely) getting 33 million out. That's them cutting their losses, not making a profit. They could be getting about 15% of their money back instead of zero, but either way they aren't winning here, just losing slightly less hard than everyone else (though it sounds like the founders made out pretty well). (and realistically, it was probably obviously a very risky bet if the company was not able to get a better deal: these kinds of deals are generally a sign that things are already bad and getting worse, and someone is hoping to try to pull something from the wreckage: the deal obviously meant that if brewdog did manage to turn things around, the value would largely be sucked up by the preferred investors).
This is factually incorrect. 2005 was not the height of access to financial markets. You have much more access to financial markets and investment vehicles today than you ever have had and that continues to expand.
Right... shells age. They blow up in the barrel, things like that. Maybe they even intentionally blow up in the barrel. Not that I would suggest sabotage. There's no way South Korean intelligence could possibly infiltrate North Korea ;)
But even so, if there was a serious threat of war, which is unlikely because China would stop North Korea, the US would place assets in the region and as we got close to a confrontation the US and South Korea (and as things are looking, probably Japan) would begin an aerial and missile bombardment to destroy in place North Korean offensive capabilities. Some would get through of course, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of South Korean casualties, but in the context of a conventional war North Korea's capabilities would be quickly overwhelmed, at least in my opinion.
But honestly, the current status quo works pretty well for everyone except the people of North Korea, but there's not much we can do. It's a tragedy and the blame for that falls squarely on the Soviet Union and Chinese Communist Party.
... And the US, who razed every building in North Korea and killed more than 10% of the entire population of North Korea (that's entire population, including civilians).
Nope. US was there under a UN banner, and the UN force was winning until China threw manpower into the war. Never mind Soviet support. The blame goes to the communists and them alone. Without them Korea would have been likely unified under what is now the democratic South Korea we know today, but the communists in China couldn’t have a democracy so close to them, so they fought to win and establish the brutal regime that we have today in North Korea.
That being said for the United States, I am in favor of in-person voting requiring proof of citizenship, and making "voting day" a paid national holiday. Not so much for technical or efficiency reasons but for social reasons. I'd argue it should be mandatory but I don't think we should force people to do anything we don't have to force them to do, and I'm not sure we want disinterested people voting anyway.
Exercising democracy, requiring people to put in a minimal amount of thought and effort goes a long way. It should be a celebratory day with cookies and apple pie and free beer for all. Not some cold, AI-riddled, stay in your house and never meet your neighbors, clicking a few buttons to accept the Terms of Democracy process.
I know there's a lot of discussion points around "efficiency" or "cost" or "accessibility" or how difficult it supposedly is to have an ID (which is weird when you look at how other countries run elections) and there are certainly things to discuss there, but by and large I think the continued digitalization and alienation of Americans is a much worse problem that can be addressed with more in-person activities and participation in society. We're losing too many touchpoints with reality.
reply