Pattern

Pattern , 9 months ago

This is a Lemmy.world post, I don’t think they see this

Pattern , 9 months ago

If they could read they’d be super shocked by who the Russians are conscripting.

Pattern , 9 months ago

Both Wagner and the regular military have been conscripting criminals straight out of prison and sending them right into the meat grinder with little training and/or equipment.

Pattern , 9 months ago

No. Not as a deliberate tactic and not nearly to the same extent.

Pattern , 10 months ago

Is there any information on how he plans to obtain biometric data? My assumption was that, with iPhones for example, all biometric data stays on device encrypted via the Secure Enclave. Is that even something X could access?

Pattern , 10 months ago

The whole internet used to be like this and it was lovely.

Pattern , 10 months ago

Historically this is nothing new. Looking at SCOTUS alone, the Marshall court, the Taney court, and the Warren court are all examples of moments where the courts have moved jurisprudence in substantial ways based on ideology. You want justices that, for the most part, will exercise restraint and seek to interpret laws in good faith. I agree with that. But I think it’s important to know that courts have been ideological since the very beginning.

Pattern , 10 months ago

Teacher here and my school is 1-to-1 with Chromebooks. I doubt there’d be any problems from trying to log in with the new school’s Google account on the old Chromebook. Being able to use it at home would most likely not be a problem.

Using it at school instead of the new school provided device would depend on the school’s policies. We allow it in most cases, but it might not hurt to check with your school’s media specialist.

One problem this would create, if your child were at my school, would be with testing software. All of our standardized tests are administered with software that is pushed onto the students’ devices by our IT, and can only be installed on the school’s own managed Chromebooks. So I would again double check with your media specialist, and perhaps be prepared to bring the new Chromebook on standardized testing days (hopefully there aren’t many).

Hope that helps!

Pattern , 10 months ago

Yeah. I had to start pinching myself when I began to look at a $400 pen as a “bargain”. Still love my fountain pens, though.

Pattern , 10 months ago

Credit unions are a much better option.

Pattern , 10 months ago

It lacks a bit of the polish of Ivory, but it’s feature set is second to mine. Quote boosts and multi tag built right in are killer

Pattern , 10 months ago

High school teacher here, and I see this a bit (although I have an iPhone)

Pattern , 10 months ago

Source: I teach U.S. history at the high school and collegiate level.

The Electoral College was one of the original pieces of the U.S. democratic system created when our constitution was drafted and ratified in the 1780s. It’s important to remember that the drafters of the constitution were very much experimenting with a modern representative democracy based on the values of the Enlightenment. So to the extent that the Electoral College seems odd, it’s largely a result of the context of its creation - namely, we weren’t sure exactly how our system would function yet.

One of the key tensions that the framers were trying to address in the 1780s was the struggle between anarchy and tyranny. That is, finding the right balance between giving too much power to common people and too much power to the elites. The framers thought that giving too much power to common people would create a “tyranny of the majority” and result in things like demagogue politicians and threatened property rights (the foundation of a stable economic system). However, too much power to elites would result in the same sort of tyranny that we lived under when we were part of the British imperial system.

So one way that they tried to strike the right balance with federal elections was to have popular elections, but to give a group of elites veto power over whomever was elected by the masses. So if someone was elected by the masses who was grossly incompetent for President, the Electoral College, a body composed of elites, could choose someone else. This was dangerous. The Electoral College would risk a crisis in the U.S. democratic system if they rejected the will of the people. So although they could veto the results of a popular election, in theory they would only risk doing so in dire circumstances.

There is also a commonly understood function of the Electoral College that is not as commonly taught and is still controversial in some circles to point out: it was created to enhance the power of slave holding states. Electoral College votes are given to states based on their population. So the more populous your state is the more votes you get. Southern states wanted to count their enslaved persons when it came to allocating Electoral College votes, but they didn’t want to recognize them as citizens or people. They threatened to walk from the brand new union if they weren’t allowed to count their enslaved population for Electoral purposes. So this resulted in something called the Three Fifths compromise where slave-holding states could count each slave as 3/5 of a freed man for Electoral purposes, but they didn’t have to recognize them as citizens or people. I would argue that the fact that the Electoral College has consistently entrenched white supremacy in the U.S. has been one key reason behind its staying power in our governmental system.

Speaking of the modern version of the Electoral College, some political scientists claim that benefits are: -it forces politicians to campaign even in small, less populous regions of the nation rather than focusing on the large population centers. -I’m some cases (like Obama’s election in 2012) it can amplify majorities in the popular vote and make it seem like an electoral winner has a stronger popular mandate -It tends to result in two large parties that must put together broadly popular coalitions in order to win. This is in contrast to something like a parliamentary system when you often get a greater variety of more specialized parties. The claim is that, in theory, this makes parties more moderate and broadly appealing.

Some political scientists point out that some drawbacks are: -It disproportionately benefits regions of the country that are predominantly white, rural, and conservative (and, frankly, racist and patriarchal) -It allows conservatives to exercise minority rule by still winning elections even though they haven’t won the national popular vote in many years. -It dilutes the will of the people by allowing a candidate to become president without winning the popular vote. This has happened twice since 2000.

Pattern , 10 months ago

Haha no way! I’m connected with some history teachers that teach in FL, and the conflicts they’re going though are just mind boggling.

I do live in a purple state that is protected from that crap by a Democratic governor elected with a pretty slim majority. So it could well happen to me in the future. I’ve given a lot of thought to how I’d handle being in that situation. Scary stuff.

Pattern , 10 months ago

Yep. And the kicker is that, with Trump, it failed at its core function of keeping incompetent people out of the presidency. So given that I think Americans are rightly wondering what the purpose of the institution even is.

Pattern , 10 months ago

In many ways, yes. There were also abolitionists and abolition sympathizers among the framers. It was a complicated set of individuals and the resulting constitution was complicated as well. It’s a document that simultaneously enshrines liberty and white supremacy. There’s a real Jekyll and Hyde nature to American democracy.

Pattern , 10 months ago

Thank you for your kind words! I know many people struggle with politics and history, especially in school. It’s never too late to re-engage through books, movies, etc. as your time, interests, and happiness allow :)

Pattern , 10 months ago

You’ve got little argument from me there.

Pattern , 10 months ago

That’s actually a really good question and I don’t know the answer. My best guess is that the founders didn’t intend that as a purpose of the EC, that it’s a secondary effect that modern political scientists have theorized.

You’re right that Washington pointed out the dangers of political parties, but that was in his Farewell Address which came at the end of his second term, by which time the Republican and Federalist factions were already becoming baked in and he had experience with Jefferson’s and Hamilton’s fighting within his administration. I don’t know that he or other framers were thinking of that when they designed the EC during the framing of the constitution eight-ish years prior.

For all I know, however, there might be a Federalist Paper that lays out partisan moderation as a function of the Electoral College. Maybe someone with more expertise can correct me here.

Pattern , 11 months ago

Even if this isn’t the intention of Musk himself, I certainly think this is what some of his investors (Thiel and the Saudis) are hoping for.

Pattern , 11 months ago

This is what has me convinced that this whole thing isn’t 4D chess to eliminate Twitter as a tool of left wing speech and organizing. He loves the whole “X” concept. Rebranding Twitter to X feels too authentic to be a cynical destruction of the platform.