Interesting Links for 28-11-2018

[andrewducker]

Here's What's Going On With Labour And Brexit

(tags: labour UK europe )

"How I changed the law with a GitHub pull request"

(tags: open transparency law git viaSwampers )

Do you have a healthy personality?

(tags: mentalhealth personality )

Is Science Slowing Down?

(tags: science history thefuture )

Climate change: CO2 emissions rising for first time in four years

(tags: co2 globalwarming doom )

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Endgame May Be in Sight

(tags: fraud corruption usa )

Sexist men more likely to underestimate how much power they have in their relationships

(tags: relationships psychology sexism )

NIST's answer to "Do you need a blockchain?"

(tags: data advice )

Comments

[jack]

OK, great, now the "oh wow, that's awesome" and "oh my fucking god we bypassed insecure voting machines entirely and now one github vulnerability and everyone can just rewrite the law directly however they like" parts of my brain are fighting with each other!

[andrewducker]

The lovely thing about git is that it's decentralised and has a secure history. So you can roll back easily, and keep multiple copies.

[dewline]

I take it that this will be helpful for keeping things as secure as humanly possible?

NIST's answer to "Do you need a blockchain?"

[jack]

Has anyone ever proposed any use for a blockchain other than bitcoin which has ANY proposed advantage of any sort whatsoever?

The closest I remember was a "tracing the provenance of goods" thing, but I don't understand why it benefits from being a blockchain, rather than just a public database run by some NGO. Surely public scrutiny and archive.org would keep them honest enough not to deliberately change historical records?

Re: NIST's answer to "Do you need a blockchain?"

[andrewducker]

The trust issue is the big one. If you have transparency and trust then no, you don't need a blockchain.

Re: NIST's answer to "Do you need a blockchain?"

[nancylebov]

I think I've seen suggestions of using blockchains to track food sources.

[calimac]

Thanks for #1. I had not the slightest idea what Labour is trying to do: this makes it clear Labour is as f'd up as the Tories are. At least it's possible to figure out what Theresa May is trying to do, deluded as it is. Corbyn? Cryptic as a sphinx.

However, I think the fears of Labour Remainers are a little misplaced. Using the Burnley example, there are a lot more reasons a working-class constituency might vote against the Lib Dems than their Remain position.

#7 on sexism and power relationships says it's complicated because "even in highly functional and healthy relationships both parties are 'inescapably dependent' on each other." True, and what mystifies me is why this bothers sexist men so much. I see marriage as two people leaning on each other, offering mutual support. This would be true even if the relationship weren't equal. Captains depend on their loyal crews, and so on.

[theandrewhickey]

Yeah, and in the case of Burnley there's the added fact that Gordon Birtwistle is an authoritarian homophobic prick. Lib Dems get to be MPs by relying, in part, on volunteers from other non-target constituencies coming to help out in their seats during campaigns. I can't imagine a single Lib Dem being bothered to cross the street to help Birtwistle.