I'm not going to download an app for every company I do business with. It's as simple as that.
I'm not going to download an app to order food from your restaurant.
I'm not going to download an app to operate an appliance.
I'm not going to download an app to get a discount on a beverage at your convenience store.
I don't care about your stupid rewards system for trying to get a reasonable price on overpriced items. I'm not downloading an app for it.
There are many people who download every app they do business with without hesitation. It's crazy. I can't imagine how many apps these people have on their phones.
There are so many people complaining about the Nix language while offering zero constructive criticism. I was a little skeptical about them using a custom language at first. But then as I used it more it grew on me and I understand why it is the way it is.
People just seem to want to complain because it doesn't look like any of their favorite languages and they aren't familiar with functional languages. At this point, I can't imagine using any other language in place of Nix. The code would have so much noise and be much harder to read.
I've never liked the idea of my display having an integrated computer. Especially one I don't control. This non-sense just furthers that.
Displays last a long time. Eventually the computer will become outdated especially if companies can just remotely load viruses like this onto them. I just connect my computer to my TV and that's the only input I ever use. Full control. The "smart" part of "smart" TVs is idiotic.
Ruby doesn't have real modules. You're right, that they are just namespaces. They are global variables with extra typing.
If you use a third party library, when you require something, you have no idea what "modules" or other values it creates polluting the global namespace. This at least assigns those values to a local variable where they can be accessed and doesn't make them global.
That said, I'm not a fan of ruby and all the workarounds to try to make it like a more sane language that it isn't.
Mail out ballots then require an ID when you turn it in. Make it easier to get an ID if that's a problem. It seems pretty simple to me. Not sure why anyone would be against this.
Issuing ID is a fixable problem and you can fight about ID issuance without upsetting anyone. It's not acceptable to respond to perceived inefficiency in ID issuance by letting people vote without ID. Realistically, it is impossible to live a normal life without ID as it is. The only people I expect to have trouble getting ID are the very elderly and disabled who have no transportation at all. That too can be fixed.
Fix issuance first, then we can talk about making it a requirement. What isn't acceptable is to deny even a single person their right to vote because they couldn't get a valid ID.
>Fix issuance first, then we can talk about making it a requirement. What isn't acceptable is to deny even a single person their right to vote because they couldn't get a valid ID.
Here's a list of things that require government ID right now, off the top of my head:
* Getting a job
* Accepting free food from a food drive
* Getting a bank account or loan
* Buying alcohol or cigarettes
* Buying a gun
* Getting a tattoo
* Picking up a package
* Driving a car
* Buying a plane or train ticket
* Viewing an apartment or house to lease/buy
* Forwarding your mail or setting up a PO box
* Joining a gym
* Setting up your gas/electricity/cable/internet
* Getting a phone with service
* Entering a nightclub
I'm all about giving people their rights, but making ID a requirement needs to be done. If the feds want to push it, then they can insist on criteria for acceptable issuance of ID. But I don't agree with waiting to do this anywhere it is possible to do it sooner. No other country (that I know of) is stupid enough to allow voting without ID. Perhaps the irrationality of this policy is an indictment of our government's dysfunction.
Due to previous rulings on poll taxes, any place where ID is required to vote, ID is also required to be obtainable for free.
The people repeating this myth are smart enough to know better so one must assume they intend to have people who can't obtain ID via legal means, voting.
Technically you do not have to present ID in Texas[1], but the requirements to not present an ID are so onerous you would easily be able to afford an ID before you could meet them. Because not only do you have to provide one of these documents, you also have to prove you cannot reasonably obtain an id... But the requirements are such that if you have the ability to provide one of these documents, you almost certainly have the ability to obtain an id. So the state will say "Well, you're able to obtain this document, why can't you get an ID?" and invalidate your vote. So the de-facto result is that you need an ID.
And this argument handwaves away, as the above links demonstrate, the significant amount of hurdles required to get an ID in Texas, which is not only paying a fee.
Citation needed for all your assumptions after your correct statement: "Technically you do not have to present ID in Texas"
From your link:
Here is a list of the supporting forms of ID that can be presented if the voter does not possess one of the forms of acceptable photo ID and cannot reasonably obtain one:
copy or original of a government document that shows the voter’s name and an address, including the voter’s voter registration certificate;
copy of or original current utility bill;
copy of or original bank statement;
copy of or original government check;
copy of or original paycheck; or
copy of or original of (a) a certified domestic (from a U.S. state or territory) birth certificate or (b) a document confirming birth admissible in a court of law which establishes the voter’s identity (which may include a foreign birth document).
Find a state where you have to pay for ID and you require ID to vote if it's such a problem.
I'm sorry but if you can't afford $30 every 8 years there is something very wrong with you. I would not be opposed to a poverty exemption for the fee, but the fee is so low that nobody realistically needs it. I don't know of a state with no fees for documents like ID.
There are identication requirements to get an ID, but that goes for any state. You have to have that to prevent identity theft. If you move to a new state you can usually turn in your old ID with like one other thing to get a new one in that state.
You are entitled to your opinion. But if you want to know my perspective: We have numerous obligations as members of society, such as wearing clothes. ID is such a fundamental thing to a government that it must be issued and used for government functions. If someone refuses to get an ID or can't manage to hang on to one, that is unfortunate but not the government's problem. If the issuance process takes too long, I would be OK with trying to fix that. I would not be entirely opposed to making ID free for people in poverty. But I still think even the poorest people can afford to keep an ID.
The only way to reliably ensure one person gets only one vote without requiring ID is to use biometrics or something. I would not be opposed to having that option either, because it would put this debate to rest. So, either provide an ID or verify your fingerprints, your choice.
Those "free" IDs are often only free in the sense that the issuer of the ID does not charge for it. But there may be fees to obtain the documents necessary to get that "free" ID.
Not specifically trying to make it easier, but passing legislation without or in spite of the impact. If they want to require voter ID then getting ID should not be a bureaucratic nightmare and it should be able to be done for free.
Because of all the edge cases. Some people do not have ID. Some have ID but it doesn't match their current address. Some people have ID but the same name+address as a dead person (not uncommon when people inherit houses from dead parents). Most people would be fine with ID requirements if they could trust that these edge cases will not be leveraged by some local volunteer with an agenda. In the never-ending 50-50 split of US politics, edge cases are too often the decider. See Florida 2000, where those who couldn't properly punch a hole in a piece of paper ended up deciding the presidency.
We're against it because allowing ten thousand unelected petty bureaucrats to adjudicate whether a voter is or is not allowed to cast their ballot on election day isn't a good system.
>Mail out ballots then require an ID when you turn it in. Make it easier to get an ID if that's a problem. It seems pretty simple to me. Not sure why anyone would be against this.
There needs to be accountability when it comes to voting. Mail is not acceptable for voting, especially if you make it as inconvenient as voting in person.
What I would like is to make voting day a holiday. Then we can put all these absurd arguments about how people can't get to the polls with valid ID to rest. Let the people who must work on election day vote early. Vote on paper, none of this unaccountable and glitchy electronic garbage. We have more tech than ever and our elections take longer to count than those in countries that use paper.
It's the most annoying thing I felt when I using software too. So in my own project, I tend to just keep the message open and wait for user to decide what do to with it, but then that's not a toast anymore.
I don't think designers should put anything interactive in an arbitrarily timed interface aside from "Dismiss". A toast is the best when it's displaying what is currently going on, not as a pop up dialog box.
The best design for Undo I think is to make it a dedicated button, like the one in the text editors. When user clicked "Archive", a Toast pop up and displays message "Archiving N entries, please wait" and then change it to "N entries archived. You can press Control+C or click [Undo Icon] to undo if that was a mistake" then the Undo button lights up.
Also, IMO the message format "Archiving N entries, please wait" should be a standard, it tells the user in a clear way 1) what the software is doing, and 2) what should I the user do. On the other hand, the message "Conversation archived" don't really provide the same value, since user already saw it happened.
That's not how that works. It's 50 degrees hotter not 50 degrees as the temperature. Celsius goes up at a rate of 5/9 what fahrenheit does so it's about 28 degrees Celsius.
reply