SorteKanin @ SorteKanin @feddit.dk Posts 76Comments 1,955Joined 2 yr. ago
Fucking sad. Just baffles me how some people can be so intolerant.
I mean... you can already kinda do that right? Raise your children to have similar values to you and they'll vote like you when they grow up. That happens constantly. There's just an 18 year latency to it. Obviously you lose the vote once they grow up to vote by themselves. I feel like you're making a bit of a strawman out of what I'm saying here. We clearly just disagree and that's okay.
The idea is that the parent represents the child. We don't trust children to make an informed vote, but we trust parents to make all kinds of choices for their children, including extremely personal choices. The current alternative is to not give children a vote at all. I think letting parents choose the vote for their child is better, and fits pretty well with all the rest that parents currently choose for their child. I also think it's better than simply letting children of all ages vote, since again, they probably won't be able to make an informed vote.
In that regard, they already have representation by their parents’ votes.
But that vote only counts as much as one person, so it doesn't give any more representation to the child if you ask me. My whole point is that a parent should have outsized voting power because they represent two persons, not one (okay actually each parent would get 1.5 votes as the child's vote would be split on each parent but my point is the same).
Until they reach that point, it’s essentially their parents or guardians getting an extra vote.
Honestly I've sometimes thought that parents ought to be able to vote for their kids. At least that gives some form of representation to children.
I know you're being sarcastic but if we actually look on the bright side, then tools like this could make indie games easier to produce. More and better indie games could in theory bring more competition to companies like EA and that could actually pressure them to make games cheaper.
Yes. Describe it as best as you can and let the developer reach out to you if you want. A good maintainer will ask follow up questions for more specific stuff that you may not have provided at the start.
a bit of text you can send to them by whatever secure side channel you want down to handing them a flash drive
Normal non-technical people are never going to do this. It needs to be easy as clicking a button, otherwise it will never happen for them. Again, this is a neat technical solution but it completely forgets the human.
Yea in theory you wouldn't need the password if you have the private key but here the key is only used for signing, maybe not for login. If it also needs to be backwards compatible. In any case, I don't think user-held private keys is viable.
Sharing with trusted parties... I dunno, I think again it's too technical and complicated to do it. And you'd need people on the platform you trust to already be there.
But for ecigs that doesn't apply as much right? But yea I agree generally.
They were also plain C functions in my case, but it doesn't take too much discipline to only call it through the struct. Also, you can put the struct in a different crate which includes the C bindings to ensure that you can't call the C bindings without the struct.
I still find it annoying personally.
Just use the Mutex from the parking_lot crate.
The only time I’ve ever needed a Mutex<()> so far with Rust is when I had to interop with a C library which itself was not thread safe (unprotected use of global variables), so I needed to lock the placeholder mutex each time I called one of the C functions.
Actually I think in this case you're still better off using a Mutex with "data" inside. I've done this before. The idea is that you make a unit struct MyCFuncs or whatever and then you only call the C functions from methods of that unit struct. Then you can only access those methods once you lock the Mutex and get the instance of the unit struct. It feel elegant to me.
Highly illegal in the EU.
Source? I've signed contracts before that includes clauses saying they can basically read my work email whenever they want.
Screen and web history sounds pretty illegal though, but would love to hear what law that is.
New fetch just dropped
Really? You can Google this and find plenty of sources online super easily.