I am convinced Rust haters are simply refusing to learn something new, consciously or not.

And I didn’t follow why a walkable city will have more green spaces. Surely in a capitalism we’ll still have strong pressure to fill most of that.

Well yes, but a walkable city is already something that doesn’t really align with hardcore capitalism. And if your goal is a walkable city, then you need to make it enjoyable. Most people don’t enjoy walking through endless grey.

Although yes, in Europe, city leaderships that care about that are usually on the left side of the political spectrum.

Point is, a walkable city has no advantage to capitalism. So it’s a safe assumption that a leadership pushing for it is not really that capitalist.

I’m not sure dutch biking is a good example for slow biking. A lot of bikes here in the Netherlands are e-bikes these days, and even without e-bikes people tend to be quite fast, especially on main streets that go straight for a while.

But then, most streets have bike lanes, and cars are very bike aware in streets that don’t. Pedestrians and bikes don’t share the same space.

The danger of vibe coding is that the people doing it either don’t have the skills to or don’t think it’s importsnt to review the AI changes.

If you work with an AI and instead of taking time typing through boring tasks, take time reading through the changes, them there isn’t much of an issue. A skilled software engineer is capable of noticing logic errors in a code they read.

If the generated code is too unmecessarily complex to ensure its logic is okay, then scrap it.

I don’t use it in that way (only use JetBrains’ line completion AI) but I don’t see a problem if it is used that way.

However, if I review a code that was partly generated by AI and notice that the dev let through shitty code without review, the review will be salty.

As always, it’s not like both aren’t possible. As a matter of fact, there is a lot of railway projects ongoing at the same time, to only quote one of your examples.

A government can take care of more than one issue at a time, luckily.

It may be a small benefit for you (I assume you are german based on your server), but not every european country or citizen has the same access to internet. This is a good initiative, but obviously not primarily intended for the richer citizens/countries of the union.

Just because you have the option and can afford it does not mean every european citizen can have it or afford it.

EU policies aren’t just for the privileged.

Not charging roaming does not mean that your unlimited plan carries over abroad. It just means you can’t be charged more for using your plan abroad.

It is still legal and widely done to have different limits abroad vs domestic.

I’m not anerican so I’m unsure how pertinent my experience is.

But yes, my representatives often hold public neetings in which anyone is invited, although I don’t go there myself.

Oof, that’s a tough question to answer in here. There is no really good way to generalise who has what power, and there is probably many ways to split the powers in a meaningful way.

You can read the articles on both positions specifically for France, which I do think in this case is a great example, on wikipedia, although if you want a more precise and complete understanding you’d probably have to read the french article and translate it.

The main advantage of this system is that when the president doesn’t have the majority to support him in the parliament, most of the executive power de facto shifts to the prime minister, who is usually nominated (by the president) in accordance with the parliament’s majority coalition. When that’s not done, the parliament can move to “censor” the government and force the president to nominate a new prime minister, who then nominates the rest of the government.

That system is a good way to make sure the president doesn’t do whatever the fuck they want if the parliament disagrees.

1. Then we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
2. I’m not overthinking it. Doing stuff like this is my job. I receive a problem, I ask the questions to get precise requirements. What I am telling you is that depending on who answers these questions, the outcome of the elections can be completely different. In a very oversimplificated way, it’s a new, even sneakier way to gerrymander.

No! France has a head of state (the president) and a head of government (prime minister).

They are both powerful, none of these role is performative.

deleted by creator

1. You are conflating complexity and difficulty. But I’ll argue it’s both more complex and more difficult. It’s more complex because rather than choosing your candidate, you have to express your opinions. You have a bunch of choices to make instead of one. That’s complexity. But it is also more difficult, because it requires you to have a grasp of all the issues that are brought up. Not everyone is able to give their opinion on how to best fight a job crisis, for instance. And picking what “feels” best makes the choice pointless and dangerous. It also doesn’t prevent lies, marketing and false promises at all, as a candidate could still be lying about their intentions just to get more votes.
2. It is very hard to find the closest match. I tell you that as a software engineer. Because what rules do you use to determine the “closest”? Do you consider every opinion as important? Do you minimise the average distance? Do you minimise the amount of extreme differences? Do you prioritise some “more important” issues? Who even decides what is important? There are so many ways to bias and twist a system like this.
3. Then you’re probably better off advocating for a direct democracy, which is another topic and can be done in a much easier way than trying to adapt a representative democracy for it!

Congrats, you have written the dumbest take I’ve read today

The arguably huge downside of this, is that it cuts the direct line from you to a representative. That undermines democracy, because it undermines your capacity to be heard.

You can have an electoral division of your country without gerrymandering. Cf most european countries.

This is a very cynical point of view that would make it even less possible for independants to be represented in the House, remove town halls from the system, and therefore make the entire system even less democratic and remove the entire point of a representative democracy.

There is zero benefit to this.

Area based voting is a necessity for electing a local representative. But it shouldn’t apply for national elections, on that I agree. The US is the only country I know of that applies area based voting in national elections.

You don’t want that. France tried that, a couple of times, it didn’t work. Government ended up deadlocked and falling every 6 months. Our 5th republic granted more power to the presidency, and now it’s a little better.

What you do want, however, is the head of state and the head of government to be two distinct persons. Which is not the case in the USA.

Three problems:

• It makes voting more complex. Having citizens able to make their opinion heard is important, but it should be separate from voting, unless you want an even larger abstention.
• The matching problem doesn’t necessarily have a solution. As in, it might be (and is actually likely) impossible to have a set of representatives that matches the percentages of each opinion.
• Not all opinions can be expressed in a multiple choice question. Most topics are way too complex to be summarised in a few options. So, who picks the few authorized opinions?