> WikiLeaks, which initially spread links to the documents posted by the attackers, responded to Ars' previous coverage of the hack by tweeting, "It is unlikely that it could have been a mistake. Mostly likely it is a false flag or deliberate Russian signaling."
WL continues to prove it is no longer a trustworthy source.
HN is one of the few places left for open political discourse with little partisanship or blundering hostility. Your comment/account suggests that you have no intention of continuing that trend. Down-votes represent a reaction to that, not your particular pov.
You have it backwards. I have this account because HN is not very open to political discourse unless you toe a very specific line. The Overton Window around here is very small.
It's troubling that calling for witch hunts and firings over political opinions is okay, but a direct tone is a problem. Maybe our society would be better if that was flipped around.
Society already is that "flipped around" scenario, there are thousands of places on the web where you can yell and call people idiots/fascists/libtards/whatever. Have you ever seen it be productive ? Change people's minds on important issues ? No. To effect change you have to have respect and compassion for the person who's mind you are trying to change.
I know politically informed minimum wage folks, and some really politically-flawed doctors and upper-level managers who spend so much time on their job or kids they don't care to read into politics. The "informed voters = rich whiteys" theory is just an assumption that infers people who want informed voters are often racist.
Lets leave race out of such discussions and stick with how we could make an unbiased solution (race/class blind qualifier tests or whatever).
education: 9th grade = 23%; High school grades = 50%; some college = 65%; BA = 71%; advanced degree = 76%.
Income shows the exact same, that as income goes up voter turn out goes up.
In theory I would agree with you that an unbiased solution resulting in 100% voter turn out across the board is the way to go. However, until such a solution manifests itself, how can race or any other existing bias be left out of the discussion? Isn't addressing existing bias in voter turn out part of the solution?
This is an interesting point. I suppose the counter would be that we only want the politically informed people who would naturally self-select anyway. It shouldn't matter if there is a bias in previous voter-turnout as many of the previous people who did vote would now not qualify, and the non-voters just stay as-is. Anyone who abstains would also need to vote as abstaining to make sure turnout stays high. I'm just riffing here, getting deep into the weeds of how a potential system could work.
We won't know until we try. People are afraid of this option because they will be called elitist (see parent commenter), but the 'elites' would not be the ones a good solution would favor. If it fails then we fall back to where we are now.
"but the 'elites' would not be the ones a good solution would favor"
Depends on who gets to define what a good solution is. Given that our country has a huge history of, and still has a problem with suppressing and disenfranchising minorities and women, I am not willing to experiment with anything that's not designed to expand the vote to as many people as possible.
This has to be the goal of the change. Move people who into paying mailchimp customers who are taking advantage of mandrill. The issue is they alienate all the people who's problem set doesn't fall into mailchimp's offering. Who knows what that percentage is but my guess is over 80%, so they understand they are screwing over the majority to make a profit off the minority. This is from Ben at mandrill:
> "I can say today that–believe it or not–there is a subset of Mandrill customers who want combined functionality and pricing, so it’s not as illogical as it seems on the surface (also, we’ve lost many more potential customers like these by having two separate products and brands). There’s another subset who want a utlitarian service provider, and who would understandably find the new pricing unsuitable."
So the original author transferred ownership (incl. github page) to a the uBlock community, in reality to one of them. It turned out he handed it over to s kid who in turn made some weird source code changes and asked prominently for money/donations.
This scheme seems to popular with adblockers, afaik the original AdBlock and the AdBlockPlus had a similar "relationship". And later a German company took over AdBlockPlus in a similar manner and is doing big business in a gray area (whitelisting domains costs ad networks a lot of money and is absurd for an adblocker!?)
WL continues to prove it is no longer a trustworthy source.