@Justin_Schmidt1 @chadfelixg I mean encourages and discourages in the sense of it being easy or hard to actually do it. It's intrinsically harder to cheat when you share power with your opposition.
English
David Pecchia
33.5K posts
David Pecchia
@dpecchia
Tech service in biopharma industry--Married with three daughters
Chelmsford, MA USA Joined Ocak 2009
196 Following203 Followers
@dpecchia @chadfelixg This has nothing to do with the purpose of the electoral college or why cheating is discouraged. It’s currently encouraged in swing states for the exact reason you state.
English
Of course a majority will say, 'The person with the most votes should win.'
Our system is poorly understood. This is why we don't allow huge systemic changes through pure democracy because majorities are stupid.
English
@xwanyex I've never worked so hard and had so little to show for it, than digging a stump out of a place which needed no stump.
English
English
@dpecchia @MZHemingway @ABCPolitics The entire internet is in the room with you right now. They all want to give you a tin star for being the most hair-splitting dude that has ever tweeted a tweet. Find some other target. Not me.
English
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Wednesday delivered a televised broadside against progressivism, a political philosophy he described as an existential threat to America and the principles that founded it 250 years ago. abcnews.link/vKHBiTS
English
@IMAO_ I got it. I had a WWF panda sticker on one of my snow skis. Then I thought of the World Wrestling Federation and thought of The Rock.
English
I always remember seeing that logo as a kid and expecting that panda to hit someone with a metal folding chair.
Restricted Daily@RestrictedDaily
This Final Jeopardy question is just hard enough to start arguments and just easy enough for everyone to swear they knew it all along.
English
@xwanyex Even if everyone was obedient and tried their hardest to do whatever work the party assigned them to do, communism would still fail compared to a market based economy. Markets solve the problem of information asymmetry that top-down control cannot solve very well.
English
I’m very offered a very similar explanation on here many times!
The fact is that enough people defect under communism that in order to make it work you have to become increasingly authoritarian, which of course pushes more people away.
Communism is the ultimate, “if everyone would just.” But since everyone isn’t going to “just,” you either have to tolerate some of the people in society developing an alternative, illegal market economy, or you have to force people to do what you want, even though some of them really, really don’t like it.
Stephen R. C. Hicks@SRCHicks
One-paragraph Reddit nailer.
English
@senatorshoshana I doubt we're missing much from "artists" who will only create art if they don't have anything else to do.
English
There's something i want to say about the fetishization of "art."
I'm still not quite sure how to say it or what I'm trying to say.
But I've seen so many pompous posts lately like "imagine all the art never created because people have to work" or "go *struggle* and make art instead of using AI which isn't REAL art." And these posts are never specific to any area of art.
I feel like the people who say this stuff are the kind of people who could be fooled easily by a toddler's drawing as high end painting.
Like I agree art made more directly has something AI art doesn't. Good art can also be made without struggling. And people can derive value from AI-generated art that they might not derive from other art. Also the idea that if we all somehow didn't have to work (get on it, Sam) that we'd all be creating and admiring one another's *art* is not real and so douchey.
Regarding AI, people used to raise these kinds of objections to photoshop and even cameras too.
All to say, you can like different art, enjoy things made by AI, and think about all these things without breathy, generalized defenses of "art" as a whole.
English
David Pecchia retweeted
Democrats want to abolish the Electoral College because they assume they'll always win the Popular Vote.
Otherwise they wouldn't be pretending this is an argument about democracy and civics.
English
David Pecchia retweeted
You are not entitled to other individual’s money or wealth.
If someone is more successful than you and earns more, the “fair share” that you are entitled to is exactly ZERO.
If a rich person wants to give you money, that is charity, not state-sponsored extortion.
English
@dilanesper If someone gets voted out of office, they weren't much of an autocrat.
noun
a ruler who has absolute power. It seems like absolute would include staying in office.
English
2 things are true:
1. Orban was an autocrat, and losing an election doesn't prove otherwise.
2. A lot of "democratic backsliding political science" is just academics trying to transmogrify their left-liberal political commitments into a scientific-sounding theory.
Robert E Kelly@Robert_E_Kelly
Douthat has spent 11 years publicly talking himself into a permission structure to vote for Trump, even though he knows better & despite J6. It’s depressing He clearly hasn’t spent much time in the democratic backsliding political science. He blithely dismisses 20 years of theory & data - including Trump & Orban cases - with one counter-datapoint (the recent Hungarian election) to protect what really matters: his cherished ideological prior that it’s morally acceptable to vote for Trump
English
English
@dpecchia @MZHemingway @ABCPolitics I'm out. Thanks for playing. They'll give you some kind of prize, I'm sure.
English
David Pecchia retweeted
Another point I’ve frequently made. The fact is that under capitalism nobody is stopping you from organizing a commune or operating a co-op. The reason so a few people do this and prefer instead to unionize or otherwise take over established concerns is obviously just that the hardest part about any operation is finding market fit and getting established.
Another example where liberals want to privatize risk and socialize benefits.
Pay Tree Arch, Context Dependent@paytreearch
@xwanyex The inverse is also true: under capitalism you can just do communism. Share your land, labor, and possessions with a bunch of like-minded people. Trade in favors and principle rather than money. Strangely, almost no one does this, not even the "firebomb a Walmart" communists.
English
@Oliver9LH @chadfelixg It's kind of obvious: When both parties have similar power, they have the political power to insist on tight processes. Oklahoma could cheat because one party has all the power, but they don't bother because elections are not close.
English
@dpecchia @chadfelixg Why is it harder to cheat in Pennsylvania than Oklahoma?
English
@poppy1080 @MZHemingway @ABCPolitics The Declaration wasn't great due to being radical--most radical tracts are absolute garbage and instantly fade into obscurity. The Declaration was great because of the wisdom written there.
English
@dpecchia @MZHemingway @ABCPolitics splitting hairs? The Declaration was a radical act, which could have meant death to the Fathers.
English
@poppy1080 @MZHemingway @ABCPolitics Progressive at the time of the founding did not mean what it does today. The founders were classical liberals, not leftists.
English
@MZHemingway @ABCPolitics The very founding of the nation was the most dramatic act of progressivism the world had ever seen. Thomas would be a slave without Lincoln's progressivism. You would not be able to vote. You as a woman could not "own" your own credit card. Read some history.
English
@Oliver9LH @chadfelixg Sure, the EC requires less total cheating to change the results but cheating has to be in the hardest places to cheat.
English
@dpecchia @chadfelixg The EC requires less cheating to change the result than a regular popular vote based system would.
English
@HeathMayo This is my favorite chart. Bellwether Counties in 2020 were magically inaccurate.
English
“Reasonable minds can disagree about the 2020 election.”
No, they can’t. If you think the 2020 election was stolen, you are not a reasonable person. If you make that claim in a court of law and advise your client to act on that fraudulent premise, you should be disbarred.
Jeff Clark@JeffClarkUS
This is a travesty. John represented the President in litigation challenging an election. That’s all. He lied about nothing. Reasonable minds can disagree about the 2020 election. He did what lawyers are supposed to do — represent disfavored individuals. And make no mistake, the elites, especially in bar apparatuses, disfavor and hate President Trump and anyone associated with him with a burning passion. No one representing Vice President Gore was disbarred for losing Bush v. Gore where the whole partial county-specific recount strategy Democrat lawyers devised there was ruled an unconstitutional violation of equal protection. Two-tiered system of justice and of bar discipline. Pray for John and his family and that John will speedily take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court and that they will grant cert and reverse this absolute nonsense.
English
@Molson_Hart @CrypticalMass @levelsio Do clean and jerk. Takes more skill, covers more muscles, develops coordination and it's painless.
English
Tennis and even better, padel, truly cause longevity.
It’s not just because the people who play tennis have better access to medical care and eat better.
It’s the cognitive, aerobic, and above all social exercise that matters.
Soccer is too intense after a certain age. Cycling and running will kill you in many countries. Swimming isn’t competitive. You can be fat in the water.
Tennis and its superior cousin are the way.
Aakash Gupta@aakashgupta
Tennis players live 9.7 years longer than sedentary people. Not 9.7 months. 9.7 years. Nearly a decade. The Copenhagen City Heart Study tracked 8,577 people for 25 years and ranked every sport by how much life it adds. Badminton: 6.2 years. Soccer: 4.7. Cycling: 3.7. Swimming: 3.4. Jogging: 3.2. Tennis almost triples jogging. A separate study of 80,000 adults found racket sports cut all-cause mortality by 47% and cardiovascular death by 56%. Swimming hit 41%. Aerobics hit 36%. The question is why racket sports destroy everything else. Three mechanisms stack on top of each other. First, the physical demands. A tennis rally requires explosive sprints, lateral cuts, and sustained aerobic output. You're training fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers simultaneously. Most cardio only trains one system. Second, the cognitive load. You're reading spin, predicting angles, adjusting position, and executing motor patterns in real-time. Your brain is solving spatial puzzles at 80+ mph. That hand-eye coordination and strategic processing builds neural connections that protect against cognitive decline. Third, and this is the one researchers keep coming back to: you literally cannot play alone. Every racket sport requires another person on the other side of the net. That forced social interaction triggers neurochemical benefits that solitary exercise cannot replicate. Strong social connection alone increases your chance of longevity by 50%. Jogging is you and your thoughts. Tennis is you, a strategic opponent, and a community. Dr. Daniel Amen is right. The data is overwhelming. If you want the single highest-ROI activity for a longer life, pick up a racket.
English
@Molson_Hart Tennis is fun but it will suck-up a lot of time and money compared to alternating between resistance training and jogging. The latter will do as much or more for longevity.
English