linkgoron · HackerTrans

26 giorni fadiscuss

What are you trying to prove? He never said you're wrong, just the fact that something is illegal doesn't mean that it won't happen to you, just that it's illegal - those are just words written in a book somewhere. Even so-called law bound adversaries break the law all the time. A cop beating you senseless or breaking into your home is illegal, but it happens all the time. You're welcome to sue after the fact.

linkgoron

3 mesi fadiscuss

Microsoft hired a lot of people post-covid. Googling, they went from 125k employees in 2017, to 163k in 2020, to 221k in 2022, and have been mostly steady in size since then (latest number from 2025 is 228k).

How "temporary" is overhiring? I think that they could probably cut quite a bit from the company, and it might actually improve their output.

linkgoron

anno scorsodiscuss

> If a party runs on the platform of ending democracy, and they win a fair election, I don't know of any safety mechanisms in democracy itself that prevent that.

Yes there are, laws requiring super majority, for example, to change, or counter. You even state so yourself:

> There are existing laws that limit powers, but with enough support and legislative seats that can all be changed.

These changes need "enough support", because there is protection built in the system - so a majority is not enough. Other examples of protection are the Judicial branch having the power to cancel illegal legislation, EOs and other government decisions, the President having the power to veto bills. All of these supposedly provide a checks and balances system, although it is of course imperfect, especially with gerrymandering or the way that the Supreme Court is built (in my opinion life tenure is a bad idea, the court itself needs more members, and the way the members are selected is too politically oriented).

> We either believe in democracy and accept that means majority rules, or we don't and we might as well pick a different system as we don't really believe in the principles of democracy.

If you have a super-majority that supports extremes that's a whole different ball game. You originally talked about "majority", and how that's the be all end all of democracy. For example, in the US, to change the constitution you'd super majority on the Federal level, as well as (IIRC) majority in 75% of the states.

Nonetheless, everything I've stated is of course based on police/army that will listen to the law and act accordingly. If the people with guns/tanks/advanced weapons act in an illegal way and against the system, of course the law is worthless.

linkgoron

anno scorsodiscuss

> My point is simply that if a person or members of a party get elected in numbers to change that, and were clear of their intentions with voters, its totally within Democratic principles for the laws to be changed.

Not, it's not. If members of a party get elected to remove the ability of their opposition or some of their opposition to vote or cancel the next democratic elections that's in fact undemocratic. Especially in a system like in the US where even without an actual majority of votes you can get the presidency or a majority in the legislative branch.

linkgoron

anno scorsodiscuss

If that's true why have a constitution and laws limiting the power of the government? Using your logic, every decision made by the government is fine.

If the majority runs on cancelling democracy itself (e.g. that if they're elected there will be no more elections and they will stay in power), and they gain a small majority, is it fine for them to now cancel all elections in the future?

If a party runs on (say) taking the homes of those that voted for the opposition, do you think that it's fine if they do it if they get in power? Maybe put them in jails or camps?

Democracy is not just about majority rule. It's about protection of minorities, different rights like free speech or property rights, free trial and other things. There's a reason why there's are constitutions, courts, legislative branches etc.

linkgoron

2 anni fadiscuss

Battery is fine by itself, but I'd say that the range is somewhere between 315-350km depending on terrain etc. Definitely not the 420km that's advertised. I knew this beforehand from reviews so it wasn't unexpected, but I'd be pretty angry if I didn't read about it from reviews before I got the car.

For me it's fine as I still only charge once a week and I still have around 70%-80% usually, unless I visit remote relatives. I could probably stretch and recharge every other week if I really wanted to, but I prefer to have it ready as we sometimes do have longer drives.

linkgoron

2 anni fadiscuss

I've been happily driving a BYD Atto 3 for ~6 months now. Very happy with it, its got a lot of nice software and hardware features, carplay/android auto works well, driving is nice and very smooth (especially on sport mode), and my daughter loves playing with the "strings" on the doors. The most glaring issue is the battery which is really its weakest part.

Is it better than a Tesla? Probably not - there are clearly places in the software where I know that Teslas are more polished (e.g. the "360" parking view which IMO could be a bit better, although I feel like I'm parking in gta 2), and the acceleration won't blow your socks off. However, they're much cheaper and it's a good family car (for us) - definitely for the price.

linkgoron

2 anni fadiscuss

yes, I immediately thought that the pronunciation was Auschwitz...

linkgoron

2 anni fadiscuss

While somewhat true, to its credit Teams is using basically the same UI stack for its web-based product (teams.microsoft.com) and its "native" desktop app, so there's a win there.

Also, the Teams desktop app has moved from Electron to Edge WebView2 - which is a Microsoft product.

linkgoron

2 anni fadiscuss

Teams is no longer using Angular, it has moved to React

linkgoron

2 anni fadiscuss

I wonder if it's confused because the code and question contain "std".

comments