A closer US parallel might be getting appointed to the Supreme Court.

In part it might be trying to head off trouble during and after the election with Republican state officials interfering with the election process—they might be more hesitant if they see other Republican leaders supporting Harris.

For the Greek gods, the greatest sin was attempting to be like them.

If there’s ever a Giraffe Interchange Format, I’ll pronounce it the same as giraffe. And unlike some people, I’ll be able to tell the two apart.

Stuck a wire in a power outlet.

Direct democracy—except instead of directly voting on legislation, voters vote on the desired effects of legislation and a metric for measuring if those effects are being achieved. The actual legislation is then written by specialists trained on effective policy implementation, who can adjust the legislation on the fly if it isn’t having the desired effect. Their mandate is limited by the associated metric—if they can’t meet the goals, they lose their mandate and the case goes back to voters for review.

The way to push them left is to actually push them left—protesting, calling your representatives, donating to campaigns you support, voting for candidates in local primaries where your vote is exponentially more influential, et cetera.

But voting in a presidential election doesn’t push anyone anywhere. For one thing, pushing is a continuous, incremental feedback process, while the outcome of a presidential election is a discrete binary one—there’s no map between the two. But more significantly, this buys into a narrative that the media has constructed over the past few generations, in which voting is a semiotic process with the people signaling their desires with their votes and politicians signaling their response with legislation. This leaves the media in full control of the political process by interpreting for each side what the other “means”: because the votes and bills in themselves are devoid of meaning beyond their real effects, the media is free to insert whatever meaning suits them.

Voting is a direct act of endorsement

endorse | verb [with object]
to declare one’s public approval or support of.

Your vote is expressly not public—you’re prohibited from keeping or sharing any proof of your vote. In part this is to prevent people from using their votes as signals of anything outside the immediate issue.

There aren’t only two candidates.

In the event that your vote actually decides the election, it does so by giving the winner one more vote than the runner-up; at that point those are the only two candidates at issue. And that’s the only event in which your vote matters.

Voting for a third party, like trying to walk through a third door, is an indication of intent. Going through the door would be getting them elected to office.

And yes, supporting a party would be endorsing whatever evil policies the party supports—but voting isn’t an act of endorsement. Nobody knows how you vote; it has no meaning as a personal statement. Its only meaning is in the differential effects of the policies of the two candidates your vote decides between, in the most likely scenario in which it is the deciding vote.

You absolutely should support and endorse a party you believe in, but don’t mistake voting in a presidential election for either of those things.

At least Oracle Weblogic is being useful for someone.

The presence of minor parties on the ballot doesn’t “place immense pressure on the duopoly”—it just tips the balance toward one or the other component of the duopoly. Which is why either party will actively encourage it when it suits them.

Edit: There’s a historically-proven method of forming new parties in the U.S., which is why we don’t still have the Whigs or the Federalists. In the past, distinct factions would form within one of the dominant parties, until the parent party imploded and two or more new parties emerged. That process of internal fission was suppressed after the Civil War, and that’s how the “duopoly” now maintains its power.

Of course, a different voting system would serve the same purpose (arguably better), and the suppression of alternate voting methods is also duopolistic. But the existence of minor parties under the current system just reenforces the duopoly by channeling dissent away from internal factions.

It applies to any house that isn’t designed to infer your intended goal and automatically rebuild itself to suit.

I think there’s a part of our brains that treats these stories as fiction—in particular, the kind of folk fiction used to reinforce community mores. The strength of our reaction to such stories signals how strongly we support the standards, not necessarily what we think should be done in real life to those who violate them.

They’ve been overstepping enough on a regular basis for the last fifty years—the real problem is that they’ve subverted the “reform” process so that reforms that seem adequate to the general public get neutralized or twisted to work in their favor.

That’s why you have more-experienced reform advocates eventually pushing things like “defund the police”—they may be shooting themselves in the foot in terms of popular perception, but it comes from a long history of frustration with lesser reform efforts.

See my comment here.

When cats meow, there’s a one-to-one correspondence between the aural qualities of the sound and the communicative intent of the cat—the same meow doesn’t have different meanings depending on the preceding and following meows. That’s how animals normally use sounds to communicate.

There are two common exceptions, where animals string arbitrary sounds together in longer sequences in which the individual components don’t have distinct communicative intents in the way animals usually interpret them: songbirds and humans. (Another possible exception might be cetaceans.)

(For example: If I said “pass the butter”, “don’t eat all the butter”, or “I need to get more butter”, the word “butter” would have different communicative intents even if I said them the exact same way—like a note of a bird’s song, and unlike a cat’s meow.)

Animals are good at interpreting other animals’ nonverbal cues, and can often pick up a human’s general intentions without understanding their speech. But the speech itself probably seems like a bad attempt to create an accompanying musical score.

There’s a part of our brain called the salience network, that continually models and predicts our environment and directs our conscious attention to things it can’t predict. When we talk to each other, most of the formal content is predictable, and the salience network filters it out; the unpredictable part that’s left is the actual meaningful part.

LLMs basically recreate the salience network. They continually model and predict the content of the text stream the same way we do—except instead of modeling someone else’s words so they can extract the unpredictable/meaningful part, they model their own words so they can keep predicting the next ones.

This raises an obvious issue: when our salience networks process the stream of words coming out of such an LLM, it’s all predictable, so our brains tell us there’s no actual message. When AI developers ran into this, they added a feature called “temperature” that basically injects randomness into the generated text—enough to make it unpredictable, but not obvious nonsense—so our salience networks will get fooled into thinking there’s meaningful content.

Buying recommendations as in a list of products provided on request, rather than intrusive narratives that disrupt what you’re trying to watch.

Or perhaps an AI that blocks ads and then gives you buying recommendations based on products from their competitors.