I'm not sure that refusing a gay wedding cake to a straight person would avoid your action as being discriminatory toward a protected class, since that's the effect. Perhaps it would.
I also don't know that I would want Trump to be silenced, since he's often his own worst critic.
I don't think Twitter is stopping him from saying bad things, either; in fact, they're pretty explicitly letting him say things, and they just happen to have something to say about what he's said, too.
Not sure where 15,000 to 45,000 comes from, as the report itself concludes only c.8500 cases of duplicate voting.
I'm also not sure about the methodology there, so perhaps someone could explain it to me.
From what it looks like, GAI started with 60,000 matches from the state data. Then they... added additional identifiers and confirmed c.7000 of them? How do you get from uncertain data to more certain data in this way?
There seem to be c.15,000 instances of prohibited addresses being registered, which I don't believe alone indicates voter fraud.
"Extending GAI’s conservative matching method to include all 50 states would indicate an expected minimum of 45,000 high-confidence duplicate voting matches"
GAI was unable to conduct a comprehensive review since a complete data set of state voter rolls is currently unobtainable. (it was denied)
I don't quite understand why the expect that there would be ~6x the number detected, though, assuming that the ~8500 cases detected is accurate. It would be very (and probably statistically naive) if the minimum total cases was simply because they have only ~1/6 of the total number of state pairings.
I think the other major concern I have, other than the methodology, are the definitions - I still don't know whether 8500 represents 8500 people who voted twice (17000 total votes cast), or 4250 people who voted twice, or something in between, or some thing completely different. Perhaps I missed this.
> Voter intimidation is a lot easier, for example, if you know where and when to turn up.
But for the same reason it's a lot easier to prevent. If you show up at the polls to intimidate voters you get arrested. If you do it to other members of your household, or your employees or union members, nobody there is independent. Anybody who reports it still has to live or work with those people the next day, so people don't report it.
> You would probably find it easier to tamper with a voting machine if you know where they're going to be, and if more people have access to them, too.
Not when there are election monitors there watching you. With paper ballots you fill out your ballot behind a screen, but you drop it into the machine in front of everybody.
Also, many of the voting machine vulnerabilities are as a result of submitting specially crafted ballots. Which is another reason you want to give people their ballot and have them fill it out by hand and submit it immediately, instead of giving them an unlimited amount of time and access to a computer and a printer while "filling out" their ballot.
Of course the better solution in either case is to use voting machines without security vulnerabilities, but there aren't always enough ponies for everybody.
> If you show up at the polls to intimidate voters you get arrested.
Yes, if this is consistently and fairly enforced, I agree - only doubting that it is because I honestly don't know, and hopefully never have to find out firsthand.
> many of the voting machine vulnerabilities are as a result of submitting specially crafted ballots
Yeah, fair enough. I don't know enough about the vulnerabilities, but if this is the case, I agree.
Interestingly the most... clever, if not necessarily convincing, phishing attempt I've heard of, went like this:
1. Phishers call someone and pretend to be from their bank. If they've guessed the right bank and the person gives away their details, they win!
2. If they don't, and question the phishers authenticity, the scammers say "sure, just call us on the number on the back of your card".
3. The cardholder hangs up, and then dials the number for their bank, which they know and trust, because they've called it before or it's come from their card.
4. They get connected to a service representative, answer security questions, confirm that the transactions are valid, and then can relax.
5. A few days later, they get a call from their bank saying there's a whole lot of fraud on the account.
The trick to this one is that the phishers (a) call the cardholder on a landline and (b) when the cardholder thinks they've hung up, they haven't - the phishers just play a hook tone and then a dial tone.
In Australia at least (not sure about elsewhere?) if you call a landline number, the caller must end the call, or at least it used to be that way (I haven't owned a landline phone for a _long_ time. There's probably also a significant skew towards the elderly in landline owners, and in susceptibility to scam calls.
I get these calls from time to time, and any bank with proper training should be 100% okay with you questioning their authenticity. There are some replies which indicate that the agent is annoyed... That's just poor training.
As for them initiating a phone call, it still does remain the best way to contact someone urgently, usually falling back to SMS and/or email when/if you don't answer (this was our SOP when I was in a fraud detection team years ago). We'd also usually tell them to call the number on the bank of your card (because not everyone is able to look up the bank's website, shockingly, so this is the most universally applicable way to give people a number) but my usual spiel was "call us on the number on the back of your card or from our website".
There's also no real way for you to know that they're legit, but an interesting reassurance one bank I know uses is to provide your month and day of birth and ask you for the year (as just part of the verification process). The partial info probably helps some people but I still wouldn't go for it - too many people know my birthday.
1. It's not clear from your snippet if the vehicle will arrive empty or with passengers.
2. Even if that sentence is unambiguous, it is not hard to come up with sentences that are ambiguous.
3. Colloquially people do all sorts of imprecise and grammatically inadvisable things like "Give 'em a hand." That does not mean the phrasing makes sense for formal, professional, or technical writing.
4. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If people are confused by singular "them" (they are, but someone please do a proper study to confirm empirically), the construct is confusing.
5. If an author feels it is ambiguous in some cases, how do we accommodate that without branding the author insensitive or even hateful? It seems also unwelcoming to not leave room for agency in grammatical decisions.
[2] If the gender of the antecedent/referent is not known, using singular they/them speeds up comprehension. If gender is known, it slows it down compared to using the known gender pronoun: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293036/
1. Not sure where these passengers came from, but sure, if you can insert entities into the referent then any pronoun is potentially invalid.
2. Of course you can, but (a) context will fill in the gaps and (b) if that doesn't work, you can usually interrogate the author/speaker (and (c), if you can't interrogate the author/speaker, then yes, they've failed in their composition - but that doesn't necessarily mean that singular they/them is the problem, or is infeasible in all contexts.
3. Sure, there are many things that are acceptable colloquially and not professionally, and vice versa. Does writing on an internet forum fall more in line with formal or informal writing? I don't think it's clear.
4. See the above; sometimes it "confuses" people, sometimes it doesn't (and the unqualified assumption that it does is perhaps an indication that there's some motivated reasoning at play)
5. I don't myself have any issues with writing to avoid pronouns, however if you pointedly avoid pronouns with one person and then use them with another (let's say you use them with a cis-female and then avoid them with a non-binary person) that's not really welcoming or sensitive, and it seems apt to brand them as such. If you're avoiding pronouns equally in all situations, that's different. But if you're selectively avoiding pronouns where they don't line up with your personal viewpoints, then you might be seen as insensitive or hateful, and you might not be welcome everywhere. That's kind of how life is, and you just need to deal with it.
I don't know if we're in the minority, but I agree. Facebook has just become the defacto shared calendar for me and my friends, so I spend less than a few minutes on it on average a day.
Just checked and I spent 7 minutes on it on Sunday, nothing since, and the most I've used it in a day in the last three weeks is 5 minutes, at least on my phone.
Similar for Twitter but with a peak at 40 minutes a couple weeks ago (how?!). And Reddit I probably use about twice as much, which is still not bad, I don't think. Is it "social media", really?
That's really all I've got, if we're excluding group chats. Those, I use probably an unhealthy amount.
I don’t think Reddit fits the criteria of “social media” as most users don’t know the people they interact with in real life. I think of it more as a news aggregator as it’s easy to get current events linked from different sources in a single UI.
I routinely bounce back and forth between Reddit & CNN to get updates.
You don't necessarily need to hire a lawyer, but I've always found this to be one of the pains of the American costs system.
On the other hand, a court can't really order you to work for the company, so even if by some miracle they were successful, it'd come down to a matter of damages, and those would be difficult to prove even if you went to work for a direct competitor.
I also don't know that I would want Trump to be silenced, since he's often his own worst critic.
I don't think Twitter is stopping him from saying bad things, either; in fact, they're pretty explicitly letting him say things, and they just happen to have something to say about what he's said, too.