You haven't met enough people who are alternatively schooled and/or home-schooled. Plenty of outstanding, high-performers who probably aren't wearing their Homeschooled! arm bands that day.
Most everyone, given enough time away from homogenizing environments like public schools, becomes increasingly differentiated from the norm. They find their tribe and grow into that niche instead. Then, when tribe members cross paths outside their tribe, people sense something "off" about the other.
This is very good work in this space. Rebirth 338 was the bees knees tipping point for virtual analog on a PC. We have been seeing numerous things that hint at the direction of where things can end up and this is a good way to establish cred for browser-based audio generation.
Generally good piano roll implementation, controls.
It'd be nice to have a master fader and possibly a compressor amongst the effects implmemented.
I'd also love a swing parameter.
Something I've noticed is that knobs with a touch screen can be rough since your digit is covering the visual feedback. Maybe a single vertical line indicator next to the knob could mean you would know where you are and how far you can go when tweaking one?
Ahhh... the days... I remember fumbling through something very similar to this and the time I spent in MainWndProc once the application became significantly complex could be awfully frightening for a noob like me.
I "invented" a dispatcher library back then for that. Marking and matching callbacks with strings and looping through in the proc [ was very proud with it :-) ]
First, I'm all for AI-based transportation solutions, but why does it seem like there aren't nearly enough redundancies being considered? There are just going to be competing proprietary solutions?
In the US, the NHSTA should get ahead of things and push for open standards and potentially for some level of development of standard safety features like being able to set some form of material or device on objects to mark them in ways that can transmit specific information about objects like other cars, fixed structures, etc.
I could make 10's of millions selling stickers or paint additives that would mark a human-driven car's edges to help "protect" it from automated vehicles' AI.
If you can garner the votes in the legislature. If a majority of the house files charges, 2/3 of the senate has to vote in favor. The house seems likely, but it will be the drama of the century to get through the senate going ahead with it, etc.
In the current climate, unless a big group of Democrats in the house side with the Republicans on the charges, it can sloughed off as partisan BS.
We'd also probably need some pretty crazy info in those emails to warrant the sharpness of public invective necessary to have a clear political mandate to go through impeachment. It would have to include some of: large scale impact to national interests, beyond-the-pale vile political conspiracy, dick pics of Bill Clinton, or a clear statement of explicit, willfully avoiding public disclosure of the topic of discussion (of particular national interest).
I see the narrative being around "sour grapes losers" and "can't win, can't govern Republicans."
Well, that's his side of the story. Burning bridges publicly while signalling that you are difficult to work with is a twofer. Classy. Subtle. There are 8 people who have any second thoughts answered, and likely two others who might not abstain if given a second chance.
Life goes on. Pick up your pieces and build a new dream. Don't stand on the bridge you are burning.
If PV wanted their stuff taken seriously at this point, they would always offer full videos for actual journalists to review and edit. They could license the content and amplify the impact of their work. Instead, they do a hack job to fit their purpose.
I'm not going to get into parsing the video you watched, but the source raises monumental red flags when it comes to any sort of journalistic integrity. Project Veritas is the same folks who did the widely discredited hack-editing to swat at Planned Parenthood and ACORN. They are partisan hacks well-understood to be either the pot or the kettle.
To your point on American, entrenched parties controlling and applying many of the levers of power, that is mostly a forgone conclusion. The only way out is for one party to splinter cleanly and then the other could as well. The parties seed, raise, and harvest grist for the mills to feed the party itself.
I would suggest massive voter fraud is not feasible. There are many quality checks that limit the potential. There are disconnects in how many Americans think about the registration and voting process which, when played out, inspire suspicions or contempt. Busing voters, encouraging political engagement from the religious pulpit, etc. We have or can get the data. Between census, voter roles, etc. Fraud can be detected and surfaced - but it rarely is.
Also, all sober reviews of voting has supported the argument that the ID issue follows the narrative that one tribe is trying to apply ID laws to disenfranchise to their benefit and the other is trying to enfranchise to their benefit. Nobody stakes a purer claim to virtue on the matter. But, in a democracy enfranchisement > disenfranchisement, so in this case, Democrats are in closer alignment with the spirit of democracy.
In terms of how and why voter ID is being used in recent US cycles, review North Carolina where they collected and applied data on voter access to certain types of valid ID (there are multiple) and then applied that data for max political effect. It's a turf war. You won't find Republicans arguing to hand out voter ID's or making it trivial to get them. Just picking certain forms of ID to make it more cumbersome for certain people to vote.
I would like to propose the following counter-argument: not everyone who supports voter ID is doing so because they want to disenfranchise a certain class of voter; not everyone who opposes voter ID wants to commit fraud.
From there, we can assume that there is a reason to have Voter ID, and that is that it prevents a certain type of disenfranchisement: the dilution of your vote because someone else votes twice. That is, Voter ID ensures that nobody gets more than the 1 vote they are allotted in a Democracy.
There have been successful voter ID laws, and they usually are successful because they are bipartisan. Specifically, in Crawford v. Marion, the Supreme Court found that it was legal to have a voter ID law that included
(1) the ability to vote up to 30 days before the election at a courthouse, and
(2) free voter ID.
Further, the plaintiffs were unable to provide a single case of anyone who was unable to vote as a result of this law.
So, while voter ID is currently a controversial and partisan topic, it doesn't need to be: it is possible to both ensure that people only vote once, and ensure that they also get to vote.
If the inconvenience is greater than the reward why go to the effort? What you claim to be a certain type of disenfranchisement is more commonly known as voter fraud, and the sort of voter fraud which showing an ID at the polling place seeks to combat DOES NOT HAPPEN. Prove that there is a problem before you seek to erect any additional roadblock between the citizenry and the polling booth.
Why is it that people who oppose Voter ID are able to provide hypotheticals without any evidence, but people who support it have huge requirements for evidence? I sense that the anti-Voter ID crowd uses the following arguments:
> Why is it that people who oppose Voter ID are able to provide hypotheticals without any evidence, but people who support it have huge requirements for evidence?
One side is claiming racism. We are such a vigorously anti-racist society, claims of racism dramatically tilt the field.
I think you mean that one side is showing over and over in court that the objective of those pushing strict voter ID laws is to disenfranchise poor and minority voters and therefore any such restrictions have a high bar to cross.
No, I mean that numerous examples over the past few years have shown that partisans of a single political party have been using the loophole provided by that case to try to pass laws which are trivially shown to be aimed at disenfranchising people. Luckily, we have lots of good examples now of cases working their way up the appeals process and once they get cert before a new court the Crawford decision will likely be overturned.
Sorry, not even going to try to deal with propagandist mouthpieces like RT or freep, but lets look at the others.
What you have are _concerns_ about voter registration and indications that some people may have submitted multiple mail-in votes. Please note that none of the cases mentioned in these articles touched in-person voting. They primarily talking about things like dead people still being on voter registration rolls (because dead people have this annoying habit of not filling out the paperwork to properly close accounts after the die it seems), cases where registration information does not match data on other government databases (because we all know that data entry is a perfect science and so any case where we have two different records for the same person is obviously a case of attempted fraud), and a few cases of people who submitted absentee or mail-in ballots and then also voted in person.
Lots of 'alleged', a few instances of 'concern' regarding what might possibly happen, and a small handful of cases where voting other than in-person polling was abused.
In short, you have a big, fat, nothingburger. Over the billions of ballots cast in the past decade this is the best you can do I guess, which proves my point that this is not a problem.
You have yet to prove that there are instances where Voter ID laws led to disenfranchisement, yet you require that everyone who supports Voter ID provide immense evidence that you will accept.
But you will never accept any evidence, because you have already convinced yourself that it's not a problem, and thus don't have to provide any evidence yourself.
It has been shown repeatedly, but I will just link you to a nice story by the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-s...) regarding the 4th Circuit Court utterly destroying the North Carolina voter ID law a couple of months ago as being strictly about disenfranchisement of poor and minority voters. If you read the ruling (linked to in the article) the court shows exactly how the conditions of the law were decided and evidence that such conditions were specifically aimed to disenfranchise these voters.
I do not need to dig hard to provide such evidence because the courts are doing quite well at digging them up. On the other hand, you fail again and again to show that in-person voter fraud is actual a problem in this country. If you wish to create additional constraints on exercising a fundamental right I am sorry, but we are going to require you to actually make the case that these constraints are serving democracy and not just your desire to keep poor and minority voters out of the polling booth.
And since that time numerous appellate courts have found that voter id laws which go beyond the limited requirements in the Crawford case were explicitly designed to create an excessive burden and to disenfranchise voters.
The integrity of our elections is not at risk, but the rights of many citizens to vote is being risked by adding additional burdens on casting a ballot. I guess letting them into the polling booth scares you for some reason, but I and others are not going to compromise on this issue and when we continue to win in court and in the elections the one who is going to have to deal with it is you.
You know ... you honestly believe that anyone who disagrees with you is racist.
I would support sending teams of people to provide help with voter registration every 10 years the same way we do the census. This would be even more proactive than what you're proposing.
You assume that everyone who disagrees with you has bad intentions, and it's simply not true. I suspect that you sincerely believe that everyone who disagrees with you is evil. I'm not sure what will ever convince you that it's not true... but it's not going to be a discussion on the internet.
I'm done -- you don't want to discuss, as everyone else on HN does. You want to continually believe that you're right and anyone who has a different opinion is a closet racist.
On this specific issue there is no problem to be solved, so the question of why you are seeking to impose a solution leads directly to questions regarding your motives.
I have stated quite clearly that in-person voter fraud is not a problem, you have failed to demonstrate that it is a problem, and have continued to cling to a solution that is both unnecessary and has been shown to be easily manipulated to disenfranchise poor and minority voters. I am not assuming that everyone who disagrees with me is racist, but I am looking at your insistence on adding addition burdens to solve a non-problem and it leads me to conclude that you are, in fact, a closet racist. All evidence leads in that direction and I have no particular reason to think otherwise. If you were here in front of me I would say it to your face.
Sorry if this bothers you, but since we are just talking past each other at this point and no one else is bothering to read or examine a thread that has been long-since buried you can be assured that your little secret is quite safe. I do not assume that everyone who disagrees with me is evil and know that I am quite often wrong in many cases, but in this specific instance you have continued to fail to make any substantive case in favor of voter id and continue to cling to this cause even in the face of direct evidence of its risks.
Most everyone, given enough time away from homogenizing environments like public schools, becomes increasingly differentiated from the norm. They find their tribe and grow into that niche instead. Then, when tribe members cross paths outside their tribe, people sense something "off" about the other.