My "MP3 player" is a phone with Musicolet. If you really distrust phones, you can buy a cheap phone and use it only for that and nothing else. There are probably other offline MP3 players but this one seems pretty good. (It is hard to find a phone with an SD card slot and a headphone jack but that's a separate issue.)
Prices on Steam are set arbitrarily. Getting things at "50-90% off" could just as well be described as sometimes getting them at normal price and otherwise getting them at 2-10 times normal price.
It's not a used game market unless you can transfer it to other people an unlimited number of times without the original company getting a say.
I have no idea what world you're living in. No prices on Steam are anywhere near 2x the "normal" price, let alone 10x. Companies that set their prices to the typical MSRP are generally seen as largely out of touch (with Japanese companies being particularly renowned for this), let alone above MSRP.
50% off is equivalent to sometimes being normal and sometimes being 2x normal. Likewise, 90% off is equivalent to sometimes being normal and sometimes being 10 times normal.
If something costs $10 "normally" and is $1 with a "discount of 90%" you can just as easily say it costs $1 "normally" with the $10 being 10 times "normal". It's purely arbitrary which one you label as the normal price.
I have no idea what argument you're trying to make, or if this is just some bizarre semantic thing. The normal price is the non-discounted price. In some domains like clothing where there is a perpetual 50% off a price that never is set that high, that's an exception - but one that has nothing to do with Steam.
It's implied by the article that there wouldn't be much opposition to immigration without big tech. That isn't true if there is widespread opposition to immigration anyway and the government broke its promise about dealing with it.
The project was started by wealth offshoring groups on the Isle of Man that were afraid their loopholes would finally be closed, so if it could deliver on anything it claimed in order to get adequate votes then that would be coincidental. (The structure of EU and Schengen law also meant that leaving was the most likely way to raise the percentage of illegal immigrants making it to the UK.)
I also find your account interesting as a choice. If were not going to swap that account, I would at least update the "about" to reflect the risks from a Musk worth over a trillion.
The article specifically disclaims that. "To identify Musk as the cause of the riots is to airbrush the messy reality. Comforting, but ultimately deluding."
Can you describe the specific chain of events required to create a fraudulent vote that is "impossible" to detect?
Surely if you can confidently state the system not only is this way, but is purposely designed this way, you should have zero problem describing it exactly step by step.
Extra credit if you can describe a method that can produce 10, 100, or 1000 votes.
Okay so in this scenario, if this woman wanted to actually vote on behalf of these people, all she had to do was pay a bunch of people to register with her address, get 10, 30, 100, or 1000 ballots mailed to her address, then fill out all of those ballots and mail them in and hope no one noticed dozens or hundreds or thousands of ballots coming from an address that would clearly and directly implicate the person who lives at/otherwise controls that address?
And the trade off here is this person gets 10, 30, 100, or 1000 votes in a single county and at the minuscule risk of the rest of her life in prison?
(To be clear, this isn’t what DOJ is alleging, they alleged she was just collecting petition signatures, but I’m extrapolating out your proposed mechanism for actual voting)
>hope no one noticed dozens or hundreds or thousands of ballots coming from an address
So what? If it was illegal to register multiple voters at the same address then it could have been detected at the registration time.
>And the trade off here is this person gets 10, 30, 100, or 1000 votes in a single county and at the minuscule risk of the rest of her life in prison?
Did not you notice that this person has not been charged with voting with other people ballots (even though she was able and most likely did that) and only with paying to register? Such a charge would be very hard to stick.
> Did not you notice that this person has not been charged with voting with other people ballots (even though she was able and most likely did that) and only with paying to register? Such a charge would be very hard to stick.
Huh? There is literally no evidence or even allegation of that. The person was paid to collect petition signatures, so she fraudulently obtained petition signatures. Which obviously are way less closely tracked than actual votes.
> So what? If it was illegal to register multiple voters at the same address then it could have been detected at the registration time.
Well it's not illegal to register multiple voters at the same address, obviously. It's illegal to vote under someone else's name. A bunch of votes coming in from a single residence would be flagged. Should voter registrations from a single address get flagged? Sure! And they probably do! But as you say, that's not a crime. Voting fraudulently is, which is not even alleged here.
Not sure what you are doing now. You asked for a scheme, you got it and now are appearing to be saying that such a scheme would not work because people would get busted even though you admit yourself there would not be any evidence.
> Can you describe the specific chain of events required to create a fraudulent vote that is "impossible" to detect?
You literally just described a scheme that is possible to detect in any meaningful amount. 10, 100, or 1000 ballots coming from a single address is, obviously, trivially detectable.
I see. It's possible to detect the scheme per se even though the detection would not lead to charges (ballots from the people registered at the same address are completely legal) and thus would not be conducted. The point your correspondent has initially made: it's impossible to detect illegal voting in such a scheme.
Virtually every type of fraud is first detected by detection of a nominally legal but abnormal behavior, then it's investigated to figure out whether fraud actually occurred. That would – obviously – be exactly how any voter fraud detection scheme works, but I guess you're saying that because the initially detected abnormality is not itself illegal, it wouldn't be investigated?
This is like saying "it's not illegal for all the numbers on your tax return to end in $xxxx.00 and $xxxx.50, so therefore tax fraud is undetectable by means of analyzing numerical patterns."
Here's how it's detected: "There are 1000 ballots from this one address that has never had more than 3 ballots sent from it. We should look it up in our GIS and tax records and see how many people reside there. We should also make sure that the affiliated registrations are fully documented as having individual residencies there from e.g. their drivers licenses or utility bills at time of registration."
Sorry but you are naive beyond words if you think voting systems don't flag even a dozen ballots sent to a single residential address, or you don't think there's any investigative capability to look further into flagged cases.
Which do you believe? There are only three options:
1. You believe that 1000 ballots sent to a single address will not be flagged
2. You believe that it would be flagged but not investigated
3. You believe it would be flagged and investigated, but not actually result in any prosecutable offense
"Sorry but you are naive beyond words" that made me actually chuckle, coming from you. I am really done with your fantasies, you obviously have no clue how voting registration works (you are not required to live at your registered address for example) and what "checks" are in place yet imagined yourself an authority on the subject. It's so ignorant that makes me think you have not voted in the US and project your home country system.
Talk about projection, lmfao! Not even here long enough to prevent your weird writing quirks from revealing that you're a foreigner, and yet comfortable implying some strange nationalist superiority to a native-born American. Beyond parody.
Are people from your country unable to answer simple multiple-choice questions like "which of these three options do you believe?"
Lmfao you think naturalizing makes you no longer a foreigner?
How is it that you're immediately detectable as not-American on a messaging board then?
Hint: It's the low-trust third-worlder attitude, which unfortunately the legal process of naturalization doesn't always solve.
Hilariously, your allegation of me being a foreigner was the nail in the coffin, as any actual American would know they can have disagreements on stuff like this without accusing the other of being a foreigner. But, being what... Russian? Georgian? Israeli? Obviously everything must be infused with an (unearned) nationalistic superiority haha.
Sorry, I did not consider another explanation for your ignorance about voting. You are just under 18! This explains your behavior much better. Apologies to Indians.
They're a private company, they can ban whoever they want.
Or at least that's what I heard a few years ago when it was politically incorrect people complaining about being banned with no accountability. They're a private company, it's their servers. You may not even be paying anything. So they can do anything they want to you and you have no cause for complaint.
People always use that link as reference to say that Internet Archive ignores robots.txt but it only actually says they are ignoring it for government sites. It suggests that they might do it for other sites in the future (of 2017), but does not actually say that that they have done it.
That first link is confusing; it seems to say they ended up removing the pages not because of a legal threat but because of robots.txt “automated”.
If archive.org can be manipulated to remove content either via legal threats or simple robots.txt it loses a significant portion of its societal value.
