A feature that makes it easier for their users to migrate to a competitor? Blockchain Capital invests $15M in BlueSky. Insert that Anakin / Padme meme:
Anakin: Now that we’ve invested, let’s make that federation feature priority 0
Padme: As in highest priority, right?
Anakin:
Padme: As in highest priority, right?
The purpose of an apostrophe is to warn people that there’s an S coming.
I heard yesterday about how a lot of Imams in Michigan posed for selfies with him.
Everyone knows where he stands.
I strongly suspect that isn’t true. I think anti-Trump people know where he stands, but I bet a lot of pro-Trump people are about to be in for a big surprise.
Hardly. Historically there has been a lot of cheating in elections. Look at Chicago up to the 1970s. Election fraud was common there.
Nobody can prove that there’s less cheating in Chicago elections today than in the 1970s, but people trust that it’s more honest.
Can you prove that your vote was counted and that the number of votes for your candidate went up by one as a result? If you can’t prove it, then it’s based on trust.
Right, but no way to verify who you voted for.
And, you have to trust that the website is telling you the truth. You have no way of verifying that it always gives the same answer to everybody. I guess someone could test that there’s some connection to their real ballot by intentionally screwing up their ballot. But, that doesn’t mean that there’s any way to prove that when it’s counted that the actual tally for the person / people you voted for are going up not down.
First, I’m writing about a person who’s watching and doesn’t know if they can trust the system. My point is that there’s no alternative to trust in the system, the system is built on trust.
Second, if you’re inside the system, if you’re an election worker or a government authority, you can tell who voted. But, you can’t tell who that voter cast their votes for – at least in a functional democracy.
The authorities can, and should, have all kinds of checks and balances to make sure that all the votes are being handled safely and counted correctly. But, if the public doesn’t trust the authorities, there’s nothing that the authorities can realistically do to convince the public that everything is above board. You can’t “prove” that the system isn’t rigged.
Yes, and again, it’s all based on trust.
The scary thing about elections is that, by design, nobody can ever “prove” they won.
Votes are designed to be anonymous. They have to be. If they’re not, they’re very vulnerable to manipulation. If someone can prove how they voted, then they can either be bribed to vote a certain way, or threatened to vote a certain way. If you can check that your vote was counted successfully for the candidate you chose, then someone else can check that you voted for the candidate they chose.
That means that, by design, the only security that elections can have is in the process. In a small election, like 1000ish votes or fewer, someone could supervise the whole thing. They could cast their vote, then stand there and watch. They could watch as other people voted, making sure that nobody voted twice, or dropped more than one sheet into the box. They could watch as the box was emptied. Then, they could watch as each vote was tallied. Barring some sleight-of-hand, in a small election like that, you could theoretically supervise the entire process, and convince yourself that the vote was fair.
But, that is impossible to scale. Even for 1000 votes, not every voter could supervise the entire process, and for more than 1000 votes, or votes involving more than one voting location, it’s just not possible for one person to watch the entire thing. So, at some point you need to trust other people. If you’re talking say 10,000 votes, maybe you have 10 people you trust beyond a shadow of a doubt, and each one of you could supervise one process. But, the bigger the election, the more impossible it is to have actual people you know and trust supervising everything.
In a huge country-wide election, there’s simply no alternative to trust. You have to trust poll workers you’ve never met, and/or election monitors you’ve never met. And, since you’re not likely to hear directly from poll workers or election monitors, you have to instead trust the news source you’re using that reports on the election. In a big, complex election, a statistician may be able to spot fraud based on all the information available. But, if you’re not that statistician, you have to trust them, and even if you are that statistician, you have to trust that your model is correct and that the data you’re feeding it is correct.
Society is built on trust, and voting is no different. Unfortunately, in the US, trust is breaking down, and without trust, it’s just a matter of which narrative seems the most “truthy” to you.
It is. It’s that plus an important process for living organisms rather than just burning something.
What makes you think there’s a threshold?
It’s pretty interesting how we’re all running basically the same hardware, but there are major software differences.
I have songs stuck in my head all the time and I ‘know’ what they sound like, and my brain keeps the beat with the song, but I’m not hearing it.
That’s just weird. You’re aware there’s a song stuck in your head, but you can’t actually hear it? I wonder if that’s more or less frustrating than a song stuck in your head that you can hear.
Can you taste or smell things that aren’t around?
Yes, but if normal experience of a taste or smell is a 10/10 in sensation, imagining a taste or smell is like a 1/10. Like, imagining smelling salts which are just overwhelming in reality barely rate a tickle in imagination. Same idea with taste. I can imagine biting into a lime, which in reality would be an almost painful experience in reality, but in the imagination it’s barely noticeable. I imagine that when I’m imagining a situation, all the body sensations are there: sight, sound, taste, smell, touch, even proprioception. But, I think everything is muted compared to reality, sight might be at a 3/10 compared to reality, sound maybe at a 2/10, and the others are lower, probably even below 1/10. I can only manage a 1/10 for something that would be an overwhelming sensation in reality.
I think the name comparison I mentioned is probably the best I can think of. When you see a person you know, how do you remember their name?
I remember their name as just a fact associated with the person. However, I can’t imagine remembering someone’s name without also trying to picture their face. So, I guess it’s more like remembering the name of someone who’s like a pen pal or something. Someone I’ve never met face to face.
I was just thinking about this, and thought of podcasters that I listen to, whose faces I’ve never seen. With them, I don’t picture a face because I’ve never seen one. But, I can “hear” the sound of their voices. I’m guessing you don’t do that either?
A stop sign is a hexagon, red, with STOP in the middle.
It’s actually an octagon. But, I assume that if you see a stop sign you don’t have to count the sides, you just recognize it immediately?
What’s interesting to me is that if I read a book, part of the pleasure is that the author is describing things in a way that allows me to picture them. It seems to me like not having the ability to picture things would make the book much less interesting. Like watching a movie that didn’t have any soundtrack, just sound effects and dialogue. I guess you don’t have anything to compare it to. But, I wonder if people who have aphantasia are less likely to enjoy books and more likely to enjoy movies?
and I’m super unclear what seeing things in your mind is supposed to be like.
It’s hard to describe, but it’s not replacing your eyesight. If I close my eyes I see black, or if there’s some bright light I see red. But, it’s like there’s another visual channel going into your brain other than the one from your eyes. Most of the time, that channel is either off, or it’s drowned out by the actual visual information which is so much more dominant. But, if your eyes are closed the fact there’s no real information coming on the “real” visual channel means you’re able to notice what the “virtual” visual channel is showing.
It’s sometimes described as your “mind’s eye”, but for me, at least, it’s not really like another eye because it’s not detailed enough for that, but it’s still as if there’s an additional visual stream of information that goes from my memory to the visual processing part of my brain. For me, it’s blurry and lacking in detail. It would be like using a slightly out of focus projector on a white wall in a well lit room. There are shapes and colours there, but they’re hard to see. But, like an image from an out-of-focus projector, if you try harder you can make out more of what it’s showing, and if you reduce other visual stimulus (like turn off the lights) you can notice more.
So for the ball example, I’d know the ball is “small, about the size of a plum, solid pink somewhere between neon and intense salmon, smooth matte texture, looks like it might be foam”.
Does this happen instantaneously for you? If I tried to come up with a description like that it would take several seconds, whether I’m doing it while actually actively looking at the object, or with my eyes closed working based on a memory of the image my eyes saw.
If you close your eyes and intentionally picture something other than the ball
Something real, or something I’m inventing with my imagination?
would you then be unable to tell me what color it was in your example?
Like, translate the image to a word? I can tell you a word, but the metal image will come first. I think I do need the visual representation to know the object. Like, if someone gives me a description of something, I’ll build a mental image based on that description. If someone asked me to describe it later, I’d probably use different words because I’d be going based on the image not on remembering the words.
In your case, if you have a memory of something that is “small, about the size of a plum, solid pink somewhere between neon and intense salmon, smooth matte texture, looks like it might be foam”, how easy is it for you to change the words you’d use to describe it? Like, say someone asked you to describe it but not to use any words related to living things, could you swap out “plum” and “salmon” without effort? Do you think you’re storing those actual words, or are you storing a concept? For example, if you’re remembering a white rock, is it “rock” you’re remembering, or is it the concept of a rock, which can match similar words like “pebble”, “stone”, etc.?
Also, I wonder how this affects your ability to remember descriptions of things that are not physically possible in our 3d world, like a Klein bottle or a hypercube. I wonder if, for you, there’s no real difference in difficulty remembering the details of a cube vs. a hypercube because you can’t picture either of them. Whereas for me, I can easily remember / picture a cube, but for a hypercube it’s hard because it’s not something I can get a real visual representation of.
When you say you’re answering from memory, what is it that you remember? For example. I have a plush soccer ball / football near my bed. I haven’t looked at it recently but I can remember what it looked like. I can tell you it was white with 2 black pentagon shapes near the mid-bottom (where it’s squished) and 2 more near the top. I didn’t think of the words “white” or “black” or “pentagon” until it was no longer in my field of vision, I was able to come up with those words based on the mental image I still had. What I’m remembering is the image, and I’m able to come up with words based on that image. Are you remembering the words you would use to describe it? If so, do you automatically come up with those words?
For me, if I glance at something for half a second I can take a mental snapshot of how it looks, and then with my eyes closed I can come up with a bunch of words I’d use to describe it. The mental snapshot isn’t going to be very detailed, but it’s enough to come up with maybe a dozen descriptive words over a few seconds. But, if I tried to come up with the words while looking at it, I would still need those few seconds to come up with the words. The words aren’t an automatic thing, it’s something I have to intentionally choose to generate, and it’s slow.
I’m assuming that if you have full aphantasia, you wouldn’t even be able to picture a simple shape like a triangle. So, if you want to draw a triangle, do you do it based on remembering something like the dictionary definition of a triangle and using that “recipe” to generate one? For me, I imagine the shape I want to draw, then my hand attempts to create that shape. For something simple like a triangle that’s easy. For something complex like a face it’s hard because my hand isn’t able to create something that matches what I’m imagining.
What about something like a stop sign. I assume you can’t picture a stop sign in your mind, but do you recognize one instantly without effort when you see it? If so, I wonder what details your brain is actually storing, like if it’s storing words, how many words are in the description. The other day someone posted an image of a stop sign but the “stop” text was in lowercase not uppercase. I wonder if your brain stores the word (or a symbol representing the word) “uppercase” and mine stores how the letters look, which I can interpret as being uppercase if I think about it.
If someone told you to study a ball for 20 seconds and then close your eyes, then asked you immediately after you closed your eyes what colour the ball was, could you answer? The second something disappears from your visual field, is it gone from your “mind’s eye”?
What’s interesting to me about this is that the way our visual field works involves a lot of fantasy. Like, our minds are convinced that we’re currently seeing everything in front of us and most of it is in focus. But, in reality our eyes can only really see a tiny amount of the world in full focus at once, but they’re constantly flickering around filling in details. This is why some optical illusions are so strange, because they show us that our visual systems are taking shortcuts and what we think we see isn’t actually reality. It makes me wonder if people with aphantasia actually “see” the world differently too.
Interesting, I was also thinking of a nearby library when I came up with the scenario. It sounds to me like you don’t have much aphantasia if you thought to have the forks down, most people I think just deleted the wheel and didn’t think of how that might affect the bike. Either that, or you have a lot of experience seeing bikes with stolen wheels and you naturally picture it the way you normally see it.
It’s worse than that.
https://toad.social/@davetroy/113476797192400901
Dorsey’s already out, the people running the project are from the TESCREAL gang.