You say worse, but these discrepancies are by design, both in the US and EU. They’re there to stop much larger interests from steamrollering smaller but different interests that they might not care about or understand
That all comes with some strings attached, as the very same people who negotiated that compromise in US have noted:
"If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.
...
It is not difficult to discover, that a principle of this kind gives greater scope to foreign corruption, as well as to domestic faction, than that which permits the sense of the majority to decide; though the contrary of this has been presumed. The mistake has proceeded from not attending with due care to the mischiefs that may be occasioned by obstructing the progress of government at certain critical seasons. When the concurrence of a large number is required by the Constitution to the doing of any national act, we are apt to rest satisfied that all is safe, because nothing improper will be likely to be done, but we forget how much good may be prevented, and how much ill may be produced, by the power of hindering the doing what may be necessary, and of keeping affairs in the same unfavorable posture in which they may happen to stand at particular periods.
...
It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on union, ought readily to renounce a pretension which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration."
(Federalist Papers, #22)
This was originally written to explain why one-state-one-vote arrangement that existed under the Articles of Confederation was not an acceptable arrangement. But it clearly applies to EC and similar systems as well - the only question is where the "fatal" line is.
Not really, before you could firewall it off from the rest of your network - though now you can just masquerade 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 to your DNS server of choice
pass in quick on { $lan $wireguard } proto udp to { 8.8.8.8 8.8.4.4 } port 53 rdr-to 192.168.2.1
Locally I run Unbound for caching, local dns zones and ad/malware domain blocking[2]. I have a DNS forwarder in Unbound configured to a local Stubby[1] instance that does dns over tls to Cloudflare.
Having done "big data" contract work for the largest telco in my current country of residence who are some of the worst skilled people I have ever work with, your local ISP is highly likely abusing your DNS history profiling your household for various questionable things just as much as Google. At least with Cloudflare they have a clear privacy policy[3] and I have faith their technical skill to anonymize data and use it can't be as bad as my ISP.
One of the advantages, though, is per-user config for the same program, e.g. the .bash files. It's pretty common to have separate /home and / partitions too, and less common but doable to dual-boot different distros but share the same /home partition. Which is itself actually a reason to be very careful with back-compatability of dotfiles
> If you use websocket for short lived connections, you are doing something wrong.
Pretty-much true, but I remember a funny story from Dropbox where their websocket service couldn't come back up after a crash because their normal users trying to re-open super long lived connections all at once was well-beyond the capacity of the system
> for example, have been found by MIT and Microsoft researchers to misidentify dark-skinned people at vastly higher rates than light-skinned people. That’s a near-perfect analogue of white people’s tendency to misidentify people of color, leading to higher rates of false arrest and conviction.
>
> It’s hard to describe that as anything other than “a racist algorithm,”
Surely to be racist, some degree of malice or ignorance is required - face recognition from visible light flat imagery will always struggle with low-contrast images, which is sadly what you get from a poorly lit black person's face. It's neither intentionally racist nor inadvertantly - there is just not the same amount if information available
Depends how you define toxicity - a toxic idea or toxic wording. The Hitler comment is obviously toxic in meaning but is 'eloquently' worded (or, at least as much as it could be given it is literally Nazism.)
I am at least relieved that this doesn't appear to be an Idea police AI nor a particularly liberally biased classifier
can't speak for all CS students but we certainly have an ethics course. Unfortunately a lot of people see it as an insult to their intelligence yet need reminding of many of their professional obligations and that their 'cool hackathon idea' might be illegal
