This is so awesome. Much love to everyone at Facebook that has made this possible. With React, React Native, Rebound, GraphQL, Relay etc... You're saving us all from drowning in complexity when buiding web/mobile apps and I love it. Keep fighting the good fight.
I'm hoping Relay solves the data fetch problem in a way that makes isomorphic applications much cleaner.
All I can say now is: Got RELAY
It is ... massive!
Sadly working as a consultant, using Relay as prescribed offers little use for me as I port from client to client with widely different data models. I am interested in maybe using Relay in parent React components to keep logical separation between my models and views.
(For anyone who's interested here was our design:http://platform.qbix.com/guide/tools, http://platform.qbix.com/guide/messages)
Do they have a specific PHP-to-Node bridge on the server side? If they write isomorphic code, either they are writing apps completely separate from PHP or they have some kind of integration (Node-in-PHP?) running?
I would be grateful for hints, I'm looking into working more with FB tech but I can't do Node on the server right now. Knowing how their architecture looks like with PHP/Hack on the backend would really help.
BreezeJS is a stand-alone data library for SPAs which takes care of managing the lifecycle of data objects; querying, fetching, caching is all taken care of. Queries use OData by default
Example: you are an executive at E Corp and the company will announce its acquisition in two months. You had previously set up planned trades to sell x number of shares each month before then. Because the acquisition is at a premium on the current price, you will make much less money if you go forward with your trades before the announcement. So, what do you do? You cancel the trades.
Was this insider trading according to the SEC? Surprisingly, no! Even though you're profiting from insider information, the SEC rules are such that for insider trading to occur, you actually need a trade.
Martha Stewart did exactly this before her company was acquired earlier this year:
I wish it were so simple to hand-wave all security risks. Mr. Levine's ability to find a MySQL tutorial was quite impressive, but his dismissal of very real security concerns is childish. It's like saying cars are known to crash, so quit crashing cars. It's so, like, simple!
This burden is becoming far too great, when this is the cost necessary to achieve innovation.
Either way, having another effort competing to make a great format is not a problem. Here's hoping it goes well!
It looks like the last patent on MP3 audio decoding expires next month.
 http://www.osnews.com/story/24954/US_Patent_Expiration_for_M... http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/MPEG_patent_lists#MPEG-1_Au...
I think this is a great effort, and if you'll recall Google went and attempted to do the same thing with VP8, but found that people could file patents faster than they could release code. I would certainly support a 'restraint of trade' argument, and a novelty argument which implies (although I know its impossible to currently litigate this way) that if someone else (skilled in the art) could come up with the same answer (invention) given the requirements, then the idea isn't really novel, it is simply "how someone skilled in the art would do it." I've watched as the courts stayed away from that theory, probably because it could easily be abused.
 Conspiracy theory or not, the MPEG-LA guys kept popping up additional patent threats once the VP8 code was released.
I don't really care about the compression ratios achieved, or speed of compression/decompression.
Something like motion JPEG would be good, if it was actually a proper standard (AFAICT it isn't).
That's an odd choice of phrase; it's unfortunate that a press release chooses to disparage alternatives without explanation.
I want open-source to subsidize a small team of engineers to create a completely open standard where no single entity owns it and everyone is free to branch / fork it.
Has anyone tested this or has more information on the performance/quality vs other codecs?
And the new uncertainty is predicted from the old uncertainty, with some additional uncertainty from the environment."
Crystal clear - great article, thanks!
I also recommend Ramsey Faragher's lecture notes on teaching the Kalman Filter:http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rmf25/papers/Understanding%20the%20...
For nonlinear systems, we use the extended Kalman filter, which works by simply linearizing the predictions and measurements about their mean.
I would recommend looking at an Unscented Kalman filter:
which sucks a lot less.
I'll be around all day to answer questions about the release (along with a few other engineers on our team).
We're very excited about this release -- it makes the lives of RethinkDB users dramatically better because they won't have to wake up anymore in the middle of the night in case of most hardware failures :) It also took over a year to build and test, and has been one of the most challenging engineering problems we ever had to solve.
 http://rethinkdb.com/docs/async-connections/ http://www.rethinkdb.com/api/python/set_loop_type/
...Doesn't seem available on homebrew yet though.
Also, very much looking forward to trying this out!
Like the original Thunderstrike vulnerability presented at CCC last year, firmware passwords and FileVault encryption don't prevent infection, reinstalling OSX won't remove it and it changes the RSA keys in the ROM so that Apple's firmware update routines can't remove it either. The only way to remove it is with a hardware in-system programming device connected to the SPI flash chip.
This is a transcript of our hour long presentation at DefCon 23 / Blackhat 2015 last week, which is why it is too long to read... Here is a shorter overview and a demo video.
System integrators shouldn't be trusted to write software. If you've ever installed software from your various BIOS manufacturers you surely know that
It is a fascinating read. Watergate is one of those things that you think you understand and then, after reading in depth about it, you realize how complex the whole thing was. From the amount of people involved to the campaign finance part to the lengths Nixon's administration went in trying to combat what they perceived as threats to the nation. It's something that is often forgotten, but many of the limits regarding campaign finance and executive power we have (had) today stem from the aftermath of Watergate.
An interesting outcome I experienced after reading the aforementioned anthology was the feel I got for Nixon as a person. I found myself almost admiring him. Say what you will about his methods, and they were dubious at best, the guy was dedicated to his principles.
Even if someone isn't abusing a particular right now, odds are very good that someone will come along who will. It's much better that the power doesn't exist in the first place.
This seems to me to be an entirely inappropriate reason for something to remain classified decades after it occurred.
But before folks pile on to the guy (and he was widely hated), some things to keep in mind:
1) As far as taping conversations go, Nixon did nothing new. It's known that he simply carried on the tradition that LBJ, JFK, and Eisenhower before him did. Whatever happened to all of those tapes?
2) Before we go praising the Pentagon, I've read reports (I apologize for not being able to source them) that the Pentagon bugged civilian leadership. They almost certainly keep extensive dossiers on Congressional members and anybody in their civilian chain of command. Good luck getting eyes on any of that.
3) Nixon's problem was that he got caught doing something bad enough that crossed a political line. Lots of folks felt that he did nothing that others didn't do or try to do. Things like using the IRS for political hit jobs are perennials in DC. Using spies on reporters? Please. I can go back as far as Jefferson and show presidents using and attacking the press as they saw fit.
As the author points out, what concerns me a tremendous amount is the amount of information we don't know about all these other administrations -- up to and including our current one. With wholesale data collection underway against the American public, I would be astonished if 100 years from now it isn't widely known how many folks suffered invisibly from things far worse than Nixon ever did. The fall of Nixon was a harbinger of leaving an age of corrupt, small, overtly powerful presidents and entering an age of pervasive, huge, subtly powerful presidents. (Or rather, the system itself, which controls or is controlled by various presidents depending on their skills and staff capabilities)
If I'm still learning what Nixon did, 40 years later, what chance in hell do I have as a voter to make decisions about the value of any current or recent president? The office is so controlled by the political/governmental system and what we can know or not is so constrained, he might as well be anonymous.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think some credit is due
> Developers, Developers, Developers
I've always cracked up whenever I see Ballmer's developers video, so I was pretty happy that Microsoft's IoT team has a sense of humor and was able to get that approved (if they had to)
reference if you haven't seen the original Ballmer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhh_GeBPOhs
I'm a little confused as to what Windows brings to the table for embedded devices at this point, especially screenless ones.
Ubuntu Snappy Core (also marketed for IoT)... mmm not so much great. IMO still few community and howtos for building your snappy apps (even Raspbian is better)
The hardware compatibility part of the release notes look like a bad linux install from 1995, which is pretty funny.
So, for how long can you run a RPi 2 from a CR2032 cell or an AAA battery? A minute or two on full bore? Because that's the kind of energy budget people are generally talking about when they mean internet of things.
The RPi2 is a fully-featured media center, not a door lock or light switch or power sensor.
I guess the problem for Microsoft with the whole IoT thing is simply that they will never have Windows there, the devices you actually use for IoT measure their RAM in KiB. And, frankly, operating systems are very far down the on list of things we need to make IoT a reality.
Now the compiler too often generates suboptimal code because it has to take edge cases that it doesn't know don't matter here into account.
And then you have only those limited not actually well specified operators of C (something as simple as "+" is not fully specified on signed integers), so you can tell even less well what you actually want to the compiler... You can't even do a simple overflow check without bordering on undefined behaviour that allows compilers to do whatever they want.
If you could tell better what you want, the compiler could better choose the perfect CPU instructions for it.
So imho, a programmer shouldn't choose the CPU instruction as that doesn't allow portability, but the programmer should have the ability to specify things better than C now allows :)
Like the new VFMADD* instructions. So if I wanted to write a binary which supports post-2013 CPUs as well as previous ones, my way of doing this would be:
1) have a huge array of function pointers for every function that could use said instructions
2) in main() check if the CPU supports the instructions, if yes: populate array with fast functions, if not, populate with backwards-compatible functions.
Naturally this comes with a performance hit at every call as at least one (or two, if you fill the arrays at compiletime, and in main just switch the array pointer) indirections. Is this really how stuff gets done?
If I take the main.cpp from http://www.strchr.com/media/crc32_popcnt.zip that he comparing and paste it into a new, default, VC2010 project. Then compile it as a Release build, then the mixed disassembly for the inner loop of POPCNT_HardwareSubbuN() looks like
cnt += __popcnt(*(DWORD*)buf) + __popcnt(*(DWORD*)(buf + sizeof(DWORD) )) + __popcnt(*(DWORD*)(buf + sizeof(DWORD) * 2 )) + __popcnt(*(DWORD*)(buf + sizeof(DWORD) * 3 )); 00E71BE0 popcnt ebx,dword ptr [edx+8] 00E71BE5 popcnt esi,dword ptr [edx+0Ch] 00E71BEA add esi,ebx 00E71BEC popcnt ebx,dword ptr [edx+4] 00E71BF1 add esi,ebx 00E71BF3 popcnt ebx,dword ptr [edx] 00E71BF7 add eax,ebx 00E71BF9 add eax,esi buf += sizeof(DWORD) * 4; 00E71BFB add edx,10h 00E71BFE dec ecx 00E71BFF jne POPCNT_HardwareUnrolled+50h (0E71BE0h)
00000001000013c3 popcntq %r10, %r10 00000001000013c8 addq %r10, %rcx 00000001000013cb popcntq %r11, %r11 00000001000013d0 addq %r11, %r9 00000001000013d3 popcntq %r14, %r14 00000001000013d8 addq %r14, %r8 00000001000013db popcntq %rbx, %rbx
000000010000133e movl %ecx, %r10d 0000000100001341 movl %edx, %r11d 0000000100001344 movl %eax, %r14d 0000000100001347 movl %r8d, %ebx
Maybe there's some compiler issue about arrays that makes using "int cnt;" as the accumulator induce the seemingly extraneous movls?
That said, I guess I could see a point in it maybe retaining users / subscribers if it's good enough. (I'd still appreciated it a lot more if this functionality could be turned off for users who request it though).
Curious how they measured performance of their model, and whether they found a "best" number of topics for LDA where their model stopped getting much benefit by having more topics.
I'd imagine increased number of topics would have some interesting side effects where it would create too narrow of recommendations.
Edit: It seems I need to register on Bitnami's website.
In this case claiming that the ability to 'handle' stress is a core part of the required employment competency, seems to beg the question: why is that not something worthy of support and accommodation? What standards for stress coping can be put forward in advance? Does the employer ever advertise with this as a requirement? Do the judgements of the medical professionals about appropriate accommodation not carry enough weight?
Whereas if it was ruled on in terms of the risk and safe work environment, seems a slam dunk case.
The article suggested other cases had drawn that line, I wonder why this one went the more tendentious route.
Some situations are just unfortunate, but that doesn't mean they're unjust.
It's also worth noting that this is a centralized, server-based file sync, unlike the peer-to-peer Syncthing and BTSync. It's more like Dropbox.
gcc 5.2.0 on Windows x64 (i5-3210M)
stl : 881 miliseconds version 1: 880 miliseconds version 2: 1607 miliseconds version 3: 1260 miliseconds version 4: 1271 miliseconds
stl : 629.231 miliseconds version 1: 629.436 miliseconds version 2: 897.143 miliseconds version 3: 862.827 miliseconds version 4: 863.22 miliseconds
stl : 3380.29 miliseconds version 1: 3428.9 miliseconds version 2: 3433.65 miliseconds version 3: 3391.86 miliseconds version 4: 3376.91 miliseconds
The "optimized" versions here all make more assumptions on the iterator, starting from operator+(int) in Version 1, so it no longer works on iterators with just "forward_iterator_tag". Further versions even restrict vector sizes (albeit to a very high number) and assign -1 to an unsigned integer (size_t). So this is something you can use in your project if you need the performance, but can't put it into GCC.
size_t probe = (low + high) / 2;
The most educational bit for me was the careful structuring and eventual elimination of the if/else to shake out a conditional move rather than an unpredictable branch.
Modern optimizers and CPU scheduling engines are so powerful, a lot of received wisdom on how to code for speed is outdated; manual loop unrolling, for example, is rarely very beneficial. It's nice to see that there's still some room for craftsmanship in the most critical of paths. Structuring loops for autovectorization is another useful habit to get into.
For those of you looking to improve your by-hand visual communication skills, a cool old book is _Thinking with a Pencil_ . I picked up a copy a few months ago, and have been enjoying working through the exercises as I find time (which also includes isometric techniques):
What it looks like in person: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Engineer...
What it looks like scanned: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wP_s3WyQd4A/S-s4B-sm4oI/AAAAAAAAAe...
Apparently not cool enough, and one English teacher insisted on "wide rule" composition notebooks, it made me ill to write in it.
One of these days I'll buy enough Eureka Lab notebooks in a single order to have them customize them beyond the simple lab/engineering moniker. :-)
Ternary diagrams are probably the main use for it. They're particularly common in the geosciences as many classification schemes and solid-solution phase diagrams are defined in terms of a mixture of three components.
I used it through most of undergrad to make ternary diagrams by hand (and had to remember and draw in various classification schemes off the top of my head).
It's hard to find, so I would guess that professors are still handing out badly photocopied versions of an ancient sheet of triangular graph paper. (Sure it would be easy to create a nice blank ternplot with grids in $plotting_package_of_choice, but what's the fun in that??)
Then at some point I discovered computers and realized the true magnitude and capabilities of numerical methods.
Anyway, plotting graphs, that will always be fun.
I suspect we HAD to use them because the school had some leftovers. We drew graphs on them for like 20 mins and then did it on the computer (GeoGebra I think).
For credentials, I used to have my own app before Y Combinator started and I did everything myself -- programming, marketing, and customer service -- like many of you are.
Just reply to this comment and I'll try provide a 2-5 minute video overview of everyone's product. I wanted to have a daily show but the goal right now is quality over quantity.
This would be fantastic for the community. Obviously more startups/side projects are rejected from incubators/accelerators/hackathons/VCs than accepted...and none of them get feedback. It is very noble for a YC partner to use their time in this fashion to directly help the community.
If I need accurate information from an encylopedia, I now use Britannica.com (Encyopedia Britannica); it's informative, well-regarded, serious, and succinct. Coverage isn't as broad, of course. I'm not sure how the paywall works but a lot of content is free; I don't have a subscription and generally it's not a problem. Highly recommended.
There was an article about ships owned by a major commodities trader dumping poison in the ocean, and they got their PR company to edit the article. I'm quite confident this is actually true because someone (inside) alerted me to the guy's name used to edit Wikipedia, and then showed me the PR company's people page.
Hard to see what can be done about this though. If someone is being paid, they have a lot more time to cleverly word their story. In some cases legitimately, in others not.
It seems like you don't need a laundry list of things that are not ok to harass people about unless certain types of harassment are OK. For example "differences of opinion" is not on the list. Is it ok to harass someone who disagrees with me?. I doubt that's the intention, and that's probably covered by the rest of the covenant, but if that's the case why do they need to list out all the things it's not OK to harass people about? It just seems needlessly complicated and ripe for causing further drama.
This code of conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.
For example, suppose on my personal website I include a link to my resume, and on that resume I list my work on the project. Suppose also on my personal website I have have a blog, and on that blog I post an article containing sexualized language or imagery.
Am I in violation of the CC?
The use of sexualized language or imagery is one of the specific examples given in the CC of a violation.
I would say that, based on current common usage of English, stating on a site unrelated to the project, as part of biographical information (such as a resume) that I contribute to the project would NOT be "representing the project or its community", and so would be outside the scope of the CC.
The Contributor Covenant's approach seems to be to make a clear statement of intent, and relying on the community to apply it correctly. It doesn't specifically ban, say, offering a backrub, but the necessary and appropriate response to someone saying "ha, but there's no rule against repeatedly offering a stranger backrubs, IS there?" isn't to draft a new rule, it's to show them the door.
What exactly constitutes "representing the project or its community"?
Related HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10043356
Edit: looking at the discussion in general and this article by ESR in particular, I'm surprised they didn't just drop this COC nonsense entirely instead of adopting a new "flawed" one.
A good icon, just like a good logo, causes a small visual play in the back of one's mind. For that to happen, a lot of design time is spent in exploration, sketching perceptual cons, cross-pollenations and optimizations.
I respect Eli, but I'd hate to see this part of icon design survive, while genuine creativity vanes.
Have we reached a phase where the difficult part is finding the genes responsible for X? With the delivery being now boilerplate code (CRISPR?).
What exactly are the limitations of gene therapy?
How does aging fit into the picture? For example, if grey hairs are the result of cell aging/damaging, will we be able to reverse/restore it?
Soon it'll be possible to seriously talk about improving working functionality via gene therapy-- I'd expect simple musculoskeletal augmentation first.
But, I really like their website. It's full of words. Thousands of them. Carefully chosen words.
1 - What about no surveillance until there is a reasonable suspicion confirmed by an impartial Judge (see 4th Amendment to the Constitution for details)?
2 - Ok, he feels safer with Big Brother looking after him ... but apparently that justifies in his mind that everyone should be watched since he prefers it for himself. Is that narcissism or just sloppy thinking?
3 - One of the many dangers of this sort of surveillance is the bizarre notion that we are the data collected. There is NO level of surveillance that equates to the actual knowledge of the self (sorry Google, NSA, etc.). Think about it for yourself - is there any data set large enough that it would capture without misunderstanding who you are? Now remember that the rest of the 7 billion people on this planet have just as rich lives (inner and outer) as you.
On that last point, keep in mind the so called "targeted" ads that Google uses. Or the movie/book suggestions from sites that use them. Now imagine such bizarre misunderstandings leading our NSA big brothers to act. Not a pretty picture.
Larger and more haystacks aren't the solution. Realizing that humans aren't stacks of data is.
Does anyone else find it deeply suspicious that Wall Street (and investment bankers in general) remain mum about this? We're talking about a group which is one of the most powerful in the world, has tremendous influence over government, and has the most to lose by invasive NSA surveillance.
The, like, inimitable Matt Levine (I know, right?):
The SEC complaint, which is chock full o' details:
Allegedly they were hacking into news services and reading news before it was publicly released, which means their investing time frame was measured in hours and minutes.
This makes it much easier for the SEC to find this type of behavior as these types of trades, especially in the options markets stand out, when done at large sizes.
The SEC takes alot of grief, some well earned, but you should assume that when a stock moves, they'll run an automated scan of every trade that profited from that in the days/hours leading up to that move and over time they'll cross reference those trades to watch for accounts that continue to do this over time when they have reason to suspect illegal activity.
Think of it like athletes blood samples being held for years after competition. They won't test all the samples held but they have the data there to look back on if they find a reason to.
is a better intro to arm asm.
He has just finished a 10-part series on IA-64, and probably posted that to provide some contrast.
SUBS R1,R2,R3 ADDEQ R4,R4,#1
(Not sure if this applies to ARM thumb style instructions or not; my ARM experience is very out of date!)
In any case, if you want another overview article on ARM Assembly, try this: http://www.coranac.com/tonc/text/asm.htm
If you want a tutorial: http://thinkingeek.com/2013/01/09/arm-assembler-raspberry-pi...
And finally, this is a pretty good book if you've never looked at Assembly before and you've got a RPi or RPi emulator: http://www.amazon.com/Raspberry-Assembly-Language-RASPBIAN-B...
There are instructions to run/debug it on an x86_64 machine via qemu.
Is this how SIMD is usually implemented in hardware? Have a set of circuitry that pushes one command to multiple registers?
Epoxy rebar is a gaff. Any knicks or marks damage the coating.
Stainless steel is gaining speed but is very expensive.
And recently Carbon Fibre bar has been entering the market.
> He launched Mayday PAC to much fanfare in the spring of 2014, billing it as the "super PAC to end super PACs." But it failed to play a decisive role in any race that year.
As Lessig found out, money by itself cannot buy power. Money is a means for magnifying the impact of forces that are already in play.
Consider, for example, climate change. During the last debate of the last Presidential election, Barak Obama was falling over himself to be more pro-coal than Mitt Romney. Was it because he hoped to court the coal-industry lobbyists and turn their firehose of political spending in his direction? There wasn't a chance in hell of that happening, and he knew it. He did it to court the voters in central and southern Illinois whose livelihoods are dependent on the coal industry there. We're a sprawling suburban nation addicted to cheap gasoline. Energy companies would have tremendous power even if they didn't spend a penny lobbying.
The same is true for banking and finance. People complain about fancy financial instruments, but at the end of the day main street businesses are utterly dependent on payroll loans, consumers are dependent on credit cards, and everyone wants to get a fat adjustable-rate mortgage so they can buy a big suburban house. Do you think banks need to spend any money lobbying to sway politicians in their favor?
And I'll also go out on a limb and suggest that money being a factor in politics isn't as bad as it seems. At least when money can influence politics, the noveau-riche can upset the old guard. Consider the auto industry. Traditional carmakers don't need to spend money to buy political power--the fact that they employ hundreds of thousands of middle-class workers guarantees that. But as traditional cars decline, and the Teslas and Googles of the world remake the industry, it's probably a good thing that those companies can use money to overcome the inertia and political mindshare of existing car companies.
Well that will take longer than two terms. Congress doesn't even play along with the people who are incahoots in rigging the system. It's beyond ridiculous to believe they will play along with their own destruction.
I will be surprised if he doesn't reach his $1M goal, and much more surprised if anything substantive comes of the effort.
The "launch and resign" plan smells bad -- it seems like a hack to avoid having a complete platform, implying that the government will lack a leader during that interval, and using that as motivation to pass the act seems like a bad idea. It also raises the question of who the real VP would be.
Lessig still isn't a household name, so I think it's far too late for him to participate in this election cycle as a real candidate. That being said, he's also imperfect as a candidate for a few reasons. Lessig is really good at presentations and speaking eloquently, but he still doesn't quite rile people up in the way that is needed for his kind of insurgent campaign (against who, exactly?). Lessig also doesn't have the cash to get noticed nationwide. He's setting goals to raise a million, whereas Hillary is planning a billion dollar campaign, and the Republicans are likely planning a several billion dollar campaign for whoever they pick.
Also, an elephant in the room: the issues Lessig is running on (campaign finance reform, voting reform, ending gerrymandering) are not actually non-partisan in the way that he is trying to market them. Everyone (everyone!) knows that campaign finance reform, gerrymandering, and voter reform are the left's issues.
Why? Because the right in the USA needs voter exclusion and balkanization(via the false issue of voter fraud aimed at poor populations) in order to win elections. Campaign finance reform is similar; big money influences both sides heavily, but they favor the right for their business-friendly disposition. Big money favoring the right wing means that prospective candidates from the left are also vetted against how business friendly they are, pulling the mainstream left wing toward the right wing, assuming that candidates act rationally and take the money for grabs.
This series of behaviors ultimately results in the far-right wing business cartel promoters that currently comprise Congress. Claiming that Lessig isn't some kind of far-left (for the US) candidate is a tad disingenuous, even if he actually believes it. A popular and well-moneyed Lessig would be a huge threat to big money's influence on politics, to be sure-- in the way that Sanders is currently.
> Lessig said he would serve as president only as long as it takes to pass a package of government reforms and then resign the office and turn the reins over to his vice president. He said he would pick a vice president "who is really, clearly, strongly identified with the ideals of the Democratic Party right now,"
So, wait. You don't want the "System", yet your Vice President is basically a member of the Democratic Party which is part of the precisely bi-party, rigged System right now ?
Makes a lot of sense if you want to perpetuate the said rigged System.
This is not Win / Lose or Patriots vs Seahawks.
This is forcing the most important issue to be confronted on the big stage.
What did we get. Citizens United, lobbyists writing 10,000 page laws riddled with loopholes, and Bills and Administrations which do the exact opposite of what they say.
> "Even if she did say exactly the right things, I dont think its credible that she could achieve it because she and the same thing with Bernie would be coming to office with a mandate thats divided among five or six different issues," Lessig said. "The plausibility of creating the kind of mandate necessary to take on the most powerful forces inside of Washington is zero. This is what led me to recognize that we have to find a different way of doing this.
I don't agree with this logic, that "policital capitol" is split among multiple mandates, and that having more mandates makes you less likely to achieve any of them. Having a position on many issues just means that more voters have a reason to vote for (or against) you. Many of those positions are expected of someone running for office under a certain party, and not stating a clear policy preference doesn't usually win you votes from the other party, it loses you votes from your own party.
I think Lessig's efforts are better spent continuing to advocate for an article V convention and influencing congressional elections via the Mayday PAC.
Makes it difficult when one doesn't like the VP.
The main reason I can see is that Lessig himself views his promise of reform to be more reliable than any another candidate's promise. True or not, I think it would be difficult to convince the general electorate that he should be trusted more than any other candidate.
I'd actually like to see Trump or Lessig run but people are so worried about a like-minded candidate leading to their party's loss.
As a potential spoiler candidate, it might work by forcing more attention to campaign financing reform, but it's hard to take him seriously beyond that.
I think it would be far more interesting to completely "vacate" the office and do nothing, without formally resigning. The point being that elected officials have far less power than people think. I think the executive would function largely the same without a president or vice.
Your tax money is what gives politicians power. Leftists want more government, more taxes, and centralization of power into the hands of even fewer politicians and yet are puzzled - dumbfounded even - why things are "working". Bernie Sanders is a Hugo Chavez, a fool.
It would have been more intellectually honest to do what Jeremy Corbyn has done in the UK: running wholeheartedly, albeit assuming he won't be elected, just to inject a range of ideas in the debate.
So in other words four years, eight if he gets re-elected.
Awfully roundabout way of saying that....
The American electorate has been conditioned to vote for Team Red or Team Blue, and within those increasingly-similar teams their preferred standard-bearers will be chosen by a consensus of large donors in a series of luncheons and closed-door meetings, primaries be damned. It's not so much a sinister New World Order conspiracy as it is a general desire by the elite to influence future governance to secure their wealth.
If this weren't the case, then Sanders' standing wouldn't be so noteworthy, and O'Malley wouldn't be concerned about his party's nebulous debate schedule. Likewise, we wouldn't be hearing as much about Jeb Bush.
I'm not saying that third-party disruption can't take place, but the time to be forming exploratory committees was months and months ago, if not years. The 2016 Presidential race is well underway, and Lessig hasn't even stepped up to the starting line.
http://lesterland.lessig.org/(there is a great video talk of Lessig on the page)
BTW: Lessig is great!