AIs aren't going anywhere. Most of the news is written by AI anyway. So what better to read the news and convert it back to the raw information the author gave it.
I find the titles are often intentionally misleading to get clicks, I am trying to avoid that.
I'm not says I won't read anything longer than a single sentence. Just that lots of current events can be boiled down to a short summary. A sentence should tell me the topic, if I care about that topic, I can read the summary. And if it is complex and interesting, I can read the article.
But when the headlines are designed to be misleading, I waste a lot of time finding out that it isn't really about what it claims to be.
Timewise. I want to spend more time reading information on subjects I care about. But I also want to stay lightly informed on other subject that I might care about in the future.
I believe, though I could be wrong, that for a person to be penalized for fraud, someone has to have suffer damages.
I think it should be illegal to simply mislead for financial gain. Think ads that intentionally exaggerate thier products, influencers who will claim to love some product and use it all the time, when they have never even tried it. And media that puts such a heavy spin on things that in court they claim that no reasonable person would have believed what they are saying as a defense.
Haha. Yep. I was going for subtle. :)
I think ads that didn't mislead wouldn't be so bad. I do want to know about interesting new products... I just want to be able to trust the info. And choose when I see them.
I'm a devops engineer. I personally haven't written code to do this, but it isn't something that hasn't been done before. Just take all possible combinations of candidates and use thier answers to compute the percentage that answered a given way for each question foreach combination. Do the same with the voting results. Then compare the % of the population to the % of each combination to get a set of differences for each combination. For small states you probably need to increase the number of seats to some minimum like 20 or more. For big states you will probably get a match with a tolerance of +/- 1%. For others you will have to iterate the tolerance up until you get a match.
If you want to get a better match, you could make the number of cadadites selected dynamic. And personally I support having a larger number as it reduces the power of anyone individual. Then the reps from the state can vote on any issue, and the states votes can be distributed to represnt the votes of the many representatives.
The idea is a group that actually represents the views of the people they represent istead of special interests.
I disagree that answering the questions have to be harder. They don't have to be so specific that they require a solid grasp. They should be more like do you agree with doing X. Not "choose the best way to solve the homeless crisis".
You're overthinking it. You take each question and determine what % of the population answered each way. Then you choose multiple cadadites such that together roughly the same % of the cadadites answered the same way as the people. So yes you should end up with representatives on opposite sides of the issue if people voted that way. The idea is that the representatives as a whole accurately represent the people. And like I said, in a small population state that may be a challenge. But there are ways to work around that.
I don't think a direct democracy is better. In a dd, money determines what gets voted on. And there are less things voted on in general, so money can sway the people a lot. When the number of questions is higher and all at once, money has a hard time focusing a message on them all. And even after that, the answering of the questions chooses a rep who is able to learn enough aboutvit to be less likely to be swayed by money. A large part of that is that they need no campaign, so they don't have to serve the money to get reelected.
I'm not saying it perfect, but the general idea is to get people who represent the opinions of the people, not popularity contest winners. And to reduce the money connection to poloticians votes. Also, you don't need a "party" at all.
1, it is actually less complex for the voter. Right now they don't kniw much about who/what they are voting for because all the info they get is marketing. But a question about homelessness or crime they probably feel more confident in thier answer. Plus many people don't vote because thier options are all liars. The reps in this case don't have to be popular, so they don't have to lie.
2 in very small states it might be tough, but an algorithm can find the closest match by simply trying all the combinations. For a computer that will be a very simple task. And it could even print them all out for anyone to validate.
3 this for sure is the hardest part. Probably some kind of public proposal and polling combo would be needed.
Btw, at work we were told to use numbers instead of bullets because it makes referring to a point much easier.
What if everybody just votes thier opinion on a set of issues. The cadadites have to declare thier opinion on the same set. When the voting is done, the percentages are calculated for all the issues. Then a computer program picks a list of cadidates such the they together match the distribution of the voters.
Very true on technical stuff. It adds features to software that don't exist, but should. But it should be better at reading language.