| >Just to be clear, I agree in part: people should assist as they can. Actually, one should do very little. We should all do very little. That will already produce a terrifying force that may crush everything precious to us. And you should only do what you are good at. If you can't sing and dance or can't give a speech - don't do it. You will ruin everything. > I fear you're prematurely optimising based on misconceptions and ignorance. If you are going to take on the impossible wilfull ignorance can be a useful tool. You can't think it's impossible, if you do you should just quit. Coding isn't a bad hand of cards. You can build something awesome without scaring the shit out of the old guard. >the inevitable consequence of more capable complexity management is greater levels of complexity. Beware what you (or others) ask for. Law makers keep tagging on new features. It's an incomprehensible mess. If someone wants to build something we don't offer them a nice spec with all relevant information. You get a pile of trash that immediately convinces most to abandon all hope. If the application has become unusable from technical debt you have to.... well... face the music. The traditional way is to give a war of some kind, burn everything to the ground and start over. We have it down to an art. We are going to [have to] keep doing this until we come up with a better idea. It's kind of awesome how the foundation of all advanced civilizations was build by people with few of any tools or resources. I'm sure they had people who thought it couldn't be done not to forget those who paid the ultimate price. Today the naysayers have airco, washing machines, bubble baths and a super computer in their hands. > I'm not claiming total knowledge, by a long shot. But I do believe my scope of consideration exceeds yours. There wouldn't be a need to write this if that wasn't the case. It's not a competition tho. It's a puzzle as old as time. It sits there waiting for someone competent enough to solve it. >There are numerous suggestions for electoral reforms (reduced voting age, increased voter restrictions, ranked-choice, and a whole host of others, see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform>). I'm particularly taken by the notion of sortition and how it might be applied. "If you can't choose wisely, choose randomly" has topped my list of most interesting reads for nearly two decades now: <https://aeon.co/essays/if-you-can-t-choose-wisely-choose-ran...>. Those are fun reads. Thanks. I wrote this funny thing called subjective sort. Rather than pick your preferred option you are presented with two random ones. https://subjective-sort.go-here.nl/ Provide the 2 election programs, make people sit down and read them for at least 30 minutes and if enough votes are cast this will sort the list from best to worse. I came to this after wondering what the signal to noise ratio was in elections. I examined Facebook likes and YouTube views and came to the conclusion THERE IS NO SIGNAL. The 200ish views on the videos from the us Green Party aren't enough to account for journalists. Further down the list the number of Facebook likes didn't even account for friends and relatives. It also reminds me of conversations where I proposed tiers of voting diplomas and told people I didn't need to read their response or listen to their arguments. I can just disagree without knowing what I'm talking about. Another fun thought was to make election program legally binding. The way it currently works is exactly like looking if the bird is on our left or our right while pretending it matters. But I think it's better to work on documenting existing government before considering changes. The later will limit participation to much. |