This has led me down an interesting rabbit hole concerning crowd crush and crowd collapse.

Did you know people in these situations aren’t crushing each other due to panic but rather panic due to being crushed after someone somehow fucked up crowd management? Was a completely new insight to me.

Doesn’t this boil down to self-censorship in public? Better not critizise the government in public becaus you never know whos waring smart glasses…

Habe gestern einen Artikel gelesen der ziemlich genau dieses Argument auch gebracht hat (war sogar einen Reaktion auf den Verlinkten Artikel meine ich). Statistisch gesehen WÄRE ein Mieter besser dran wenn er konsequent die Differenz zwischen Miete und Ratenzahlung des Eigentümers sparen WÜRDE. Machen die meisten aber wahrscheinlich nicht sondern verkonsumieren mehr.

Dadurch steht der Eigentümer in der Realittä im Alter oft besser da weil er durch die Raten zum Sparen gezwungen wurde… was besser zu einem passt muss jeder selbst entscheiden. Der Atikel ist dahingehend aber irreführend und will vermutlich Finanzprodukte vermarkten.

Ich teile diesen Optimismus leider nicht.

Wir reden nach alle dem was passiert ist immernoch von NUR 60% Unzufriedenheit mit Trump II. Das heißt 40% finden das was er macht GUT. Damit ,es knallt" müsste eine große Bevölkerungsmehrheit nicht nur ,unzufrieden" sein sondern in ihrer Comfortzone so sehr gestört werden, dass sie bereit sind diese zu verlassen. Von dem Punkt sind wir mMn noch meilenweit entfernt. Wenn es soweit ist, werden die USA längst zu einer voll funktionsfähigen Autokratie umgebaut worden sein… der Weg da wieder raus wird lang und steinig.

Like this?

Noch existiert das Monopol nicht. Es könnte aber entstehen, und dann gilt

Und genau an der Stelle können wir eigentlich schon aufhören. In Russland und Ungarn existieren diese Mono- bzw. Oligopole nachweislich heute schon. Die Unterstützung für Orban so zu rechtfertigen ergibt keinen Sinn.

Warum sollte Russland mit der SU gleichgesetzt werden, insbesondere wenn die Vorsitzenden meist keine Russen waren?

Könnte daran liegen das Russland ein Nachbarland überfallen hat weil es glaubt dort historisch ein Recht auf Einfluss zu besitzen.

Wer die Vorsitzenden waren ist irrelevant, dass die SU russlanddominiert und -organisiert war kannst du in jedem Geschichtsbuch nachlesen.

I’m in favor of your position but this

You can either believe the shit you just said

is just rude and that way, you won’t generate support for your position among people who don’t already agree with you. I think that’s counterproductive, because cooperation is the most effective weapon you have against a repressive state.

I asked a simple question to understand the situation and you start insulting me.

My argument would be that people definitely would make bad decisions in the beginning. But that wouldn’t be that far off of the status quo, would it?

My hope would be that this system gives an incentive to ACTUALLY get informed about the matter you vote on since you’re actively choosing to get involved instead of voting on every topic (also the ones you have 0.0 interest in) every 4 years. Another point, which may be a bit far fetched idk, could be that you theoretically could use LLMs to summarize the various proposed solutions and their justifications. In the system I have in mind, the experts you mentioned would also submit proposed solutions.

Based on your example:

Problem formulated for the petition: “Rents are too high.”

If the petition goes through, anyone could propose solutions. For example, “rent control” (proposed by someone on the left), “foreigners out” (proposed by someone on the right), “revise building standards and invest in public housing” (an expert).

The population might follow the populists at first… However, if the problem is not solved after 10 years, you can’t blame “those at the top” for the solution not working, and hopefully there will be a rethink.

Maybe this is just a utopian fantasy of mine. But I have the feeling that our democratic systems are not up to the challenges of the digitalized 21st century and growing inequality… this is the best solution I have come up with so far.

Isn’t it the other way round: ICE pruposely bullys blue states (Among other reasons, because the red states need illegal immigrants as laborers) ?

Finde diese Art Content schadet nicht zwischen dem ganzen Doomscrolling…

Ich hab keine Ahnung von Graphhopper.

Wenns um Mapsalternativen geht nutze ich aktuell Mapy und bin vollauf zufrieden.

Beweise mir mal deine ,westlichen Eliten die ein Monopol halten", danach vergleichen wir das mit Russland und Ungarn und sehen wo die Elite sich stärker auf Kosten der Bevölkerung bereichert.

Die EU kooperiert, das ist per se vorteilhaft. Wenn Ungarn nicht kooperieren möchte kann es die Gemeinschaft gerne verlassen. Aktuell nimmt Orban die EU Milliarden gerne (unter anderem um sich persönlich damit zu bereichern.

https://www.fr.de/politik/korruption-in-ungarn-orban-kritiker-fordert-einfrieren-aller-eu-gelder-eine-abscheulichkeit-zr-94068165.html

… wenn es dann aber um Kooperation seitens Ungarn geht blockiert er lieber die EU und kooperiert mit Russland. Erstaunlich, dass ein Volk welches nache eigener Aussage jahrzehntelang unter der russischen Vorherrschaft in der SU leidern musste das gut heißen soll.

Für Orban ja, für den Rest der Ungarn nein.

Orban hat defacto ein Medienmonopol aufgebaut und weitere Bereiche der Wirtschaft seinen Freunden und Familie zugeschanzt. Für diese Leute läuft es super, der Rest Ungarns zahlt dadurch höhere Preise und kriegt schlechteren Service. Du hättest Recht wenn Ungarn unter Orban mehr Wettbewerb bedeuten würde… dad Gegenteil ist der Fall.

Create an open source platform where everyone can vote on every matter. Matter to be voted on are chosen by petitions. If a petition indicates societal need for change (x supporters in y time frame) anyone can propose a solution. Then a vote is taken. The solution with the most votes is implemented. If there is a new petition on the same topic, the fun starts all over again.

Advantages from my point of view:

1. No potentially corrupt representatives

2. No deflection of one’s own bad voting decisions (aka. it’s the fault of those at the top)

3. Citizens once again have a motivation to inform themselves about issues more than just once every four years.

Will everyone always be able to vote on everything? Certainly not, as individuals’ time and resources are limited. Therefore, those who vote on a decision are likely to be affected by it themselves, or at least feel that they are. In this way, people who have informed themselves beforehand, or at least would do so, tend to vote more.

We would use the real-time communication possibilities that the internet has given us for something positive instead of slop and brain rot.

I think you forgot radishes in your list. xD

I always grow my vegetables on the windowsill. If you have two windows to choose from, pay attention to which direction they face. South-facing windows are best, west and east are also okay, but you should avoid north-facing windows, as they don’t get much sunlight.

First read 'anti-woke man’s asleep" … also makes sense.

My problem with anonymous leaders is that we’d completely lose track of who’s to be made responsible. It would basically create a shortcut for elites to rule without having to hide their corruption/influence.

A group/institution would probably also face the same problem as we have today with single persons: Big money would simply buy influence in these new organizations instead of bribing single individuals.

A direct democracy would mean you have to bribe a big part of the population to cover your ideas… the worse your idea is and the more support you need to buy for it the more translates from bribery to paying a majority to accept your idea. At some point the amount of bribes extends the gains to be made by your manipulation and it becomes uneconomical… we’d basically use capitalism against bribery.

Maybe by advancing our democracies in the same way the technology to divide and rule us is advancing.

Personally, I think the internet is both a blessing and a curse: while it is currently being used to sow discord and spread lies, it will also enable us to do without representatives and the corruption that goes with them in the foreseeable future. I believe that internet- and open-source-based direct democracy is the model of government of the future.

II would put it the other way around: as long as representative systems exist, it will always be more likely that egoists and narcissists will establish themselves in leadership positions, even if they only make up a small part of the population. Today, this is encouraged by the fact that we reward these character traits, which are actually harmful to the community, with fame, money and prestige.

Personally, I think the internet is both a blessing and a curse: while it is currently being used to sow discord and spread lies, it will also enable us to do without representatives and the corruption that goes with them in the foreseeable future. I believe that internet- and open-source-based direct democracy is the model of government of the future.