#vote flipping algorithm

[republicansaretheproblem]

🤔

Hmmm…

[rejectingrepublicans]

“Data that makes no statistical sense. A clean sweep in all seven swing states.

The fall of the Blue Wall. Eighty-eight counties flipped red—not one flipped blue.

Every victory landed just under the threshold that would trigger an automatic recount. Donald Trump outperformed expectations in down-ballot races with margins never before seen—while Kamala Harris simultaneously underperformed in those exact same areas.

If one were to accept these results at face value—Donald Trump, a 34-count convicted felon, supposedly outperformed Ronald Reagan. According to the co-founder of the Election Truth Alliance:

“These anomalies didn’t happen nationwide. They didn’t even happen across all voting methods—this just doesn’t reflect human voting behavior.”

They were concentrated.

Targeted.

Specific to swing states and Texas—and specific to Election Day voting.

And the supposed explanation? “Her policies were unpopular.”

Let’s think this through logically. We’re supposed to believe that in all the battleground states, Democratic voters were so disillusioned by Vice President Harris’s platform that they voted blue down ballot—but flipped to Trump at the top of the ticket?

Not in early voting.

Not by mail.

With exception to Nevada, only on Election Day.

And only after a certain threshold of ballots had been cast—where VP Harris’s numbers begin to diverge from her own party, and Trump’s suddenly begin to surge. As President Biden would say, “C’mon, man.”

In the world of election data analysis, there’s a term for that: vote-flipping algorithm.”

*If you recall ES&S voting machines gave Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham. All the swing states and Texas appear to have had their vote tallies tampered with.

[dankxsinatra]

I think the reason I didn't enjoy leftoid meltdown this time around is because it's kinda like that cute dog that went viral standing on his hind legs a few years ago.

Sure, it was entertaining but then you learn that the dog's owner basically tortured it during it's training for that to happen and then it becomes far less entertaining.

These people have been in a panopticon of algorithmically targeted stimuli to fearmonger them into voting for democrats. And now? They are convinced they are in 1930s Germany. This is a problem to have a sizeable portion of the population flipping shit.

[chronicallycouchbound]

Intelligence Doesn't Equal Morality

Intellect is rooted in ableist systems and stupidity and intelligence are pointless social constructs that don't relate to morals or character.

I try to be a pretty good person, I fight for human rights, I regularly engage in mutual aid, and I care for my community. I try to do the right thing and support causes I care about and make positive changes in the world.

But I also am not very smart. I have several neurodevelopmental disorders, as well as cognitive disabilities. I can’t do simple, basic math, it’s hard for me to remember facts or algorithms, I rely entirely on spellcheck and speech-to-text to write, I failed many classes in high school and I barely passed with a low GPA, I had low pSAT scores and I never took the SATs. I moved around a lot all through school starting in third grade, and I missed a lot of basic fundamentals in learning (like how to do division and multiplication) so when I went to a different school they had already passed it and expected me to know. After my TBI, I could barely read AFTER I was cleared from my “concussion” symptoms because letters and words would flip around and I’d get headaches. Which still happens sometimes.

A lot of people see me as smart because I've learned a lot of academic language and can formulate thoughts into cohesive posts. But I lack a lot of necessary skills and rely on my caretakers to assist me. Things like budgeting and planning are extremely difficult for me. If I need to do simple addition or subtraction, even with a calculator, I quickly get confused and struggle. I forget basic information about myself all the time, let alone other subjects. I'm talking, has to check my ID for my birthday type confused. Doesn't know my name or address or what year it is confused. It happens daily, sometimes multiple times a day. Being able to type out posts like this often takes weeks and many adaptive tools to get there. Focusing is extremely difficult on many fronts, severe chronic pain, ADHD, dissociation, fatigue, migraines, and TBI, are just some of the contributing factors. I struggle daily with many things because of my lack of intellect.

I’m also privileged in the fact that I had some access to education as a homeless youth, that I had some supports in place to help me (towards the end of school), that I was somewhat able-bodied at the time and could walk or bike to and from school when the school system didn’t provide transportation. I was fortunate to have a chance to succeed, and I’m proud that I graduated high school because it was a difficult task for me, and others often aren’t offered that chance or get accommodations. I almost didn’t and I dropped out many times before graduation. I passed on sheer luck and what little privileges I had. 

That all being said, me being stupid (reclaiming it here) doesn't make me a bad person. I don't hurt people because I can't do math. I may mess up things or get confused but it doesn't make me want to harm others.

We often (wrongfully) equate morals with intellect. Being ‘stupid’, ‘dumb’, or an ‘idiot’ doesn’t automatically make someone a bad person. Plenty of evil, awful, and abusive people are extremely intelligent. 

I see this most notably with people advocating for IQ tests to be able to vote. Often from left-leaning people, in hopes it'll make the right (that they view as unintelligent), unable to vote. The reality is, it just hurts some of our most vulnerable members of the community while not actively doing anything to restrict some of the most dangerous members of our community-- those who know what they're doing to harm others and deliberately doing so. My voice matters, and I speak up against injustice and participate in dismantling oppressive systems. Taking away my right to vote won't make the right stop oppressing minorities (which also puts a lot of faith into the two-party voting system, which is a post for another day).

Additionally, legislative measures that discriminate against intellectually disabled people such as IQ tests for voting are also rooted in racism and classism. 

Yes, education can be a vital tool when it comes to addressing discrimination and creating safer communities. But the kind of education that is measured with an IQ test (or any test) isn't the same. Building compassion and caring for others can (and should) happen at any IQ level. We can all practice this, we can all participate.

It harms our communities and stagnates our progress when we equate intelligence with high morals.

[brazenautomaton]

Dude, I have been waiting for someone ANYONE to finally say that blaming voters and being so absurdly out of touch is not a good look. I honestly have gotten so sick and tired of the Democrats and people who suck up to them trying to sink the ship just because they can’t be the captain when they lose and attack our moral character. Speaking from personal experience, these are people who are so self-centered and close-minded that they believe if something is bad for them, it’s bad for everyone else. And it’s not just in politics where this mindset is prevalent.

well, I've been saying it for a while, using the "blaming the voters for losing the election is like blaming the points for losing a football game" analogy

call it insularity or call it "epistemic closure," the refusal to listen to anyone and insistence on making things up about what other people believe to tell flattering stories to yourself is ruinous. since I don't like what republicans do most of the time and really don't like what Trump does, this is bad for me.

when Trump wins by gaining more of the minority vote than any Republican in living memory, saying he was the "candidate of white supremacy" and that white supremacy won the election for him is wrong. it's not correct. it's just flattering yourself -- "I didn't really lose, it's not that I failed, it's just that I'm too good and everyone else is too evil." any time you float the idea that democrats might be wrong about anything, they instantly default to "Oh, so we should just abandon all minorities and embrace white supremacy" or some similar horseshit, because they can't get the idea that they're doing a bad job of the things they claim to be doing.

honestly a major component of this is that the "elite" or "expert class" of Democratic-leaning institutions have absolutely incinerated their credibility, and don't seem to realize it. They say "Oh no, people are radicalized by the algorithm, they fall into these right-wing rabbit holes and get brainwashed by OneAmerica Network and Fox News and Alex Jones," as if the fact that people who agree with you create the overwhelming, crushing majority of all media content just can't account for anything. if people who agree with you create the majority of media content people see, and then seeing a few hours of videos by people who don't agree with you is enough to convince people to abandon you, you done fucked up. the demand for these right-wing media outlets arose because you had an absolute stranglehold on the media which you used to show everyone how completely untrustworthy and out of touch you are. They remember that shit! They remember all the lies you told about Covid and all the times you fucking flip-flopped on it! The "open letter" from the medical establishment about how people should join the George Floyd protests because Racism Is The Real Virus, when one week ago they were saying anyone who went outside for any reason was a murderer and probably a fascist succeeded only in annihilating the credibility of the medial establishment forever. It proved it didn't say things that were true, only things that benefited and flattered Democratic politics, so now anybody who isn't already in the tank for Democratic politics won't believe they're telling the truth.

Democrats think that the media must not be hard enough on Trump and the solution is they have to be harder on Trump and then, and THEN everyone will believe them and hate Trump too! Trump gets stronger every time the media attacks him because the media has proven itself to be so biased and untrustworthy that anyone they attack is probably doing something right! They keep expecting that people should just believe everything they say and do what they tell them, and no, it doesn't work like that, you've proven you can't be trusted.

Yet Democrats think they are entitled to people's support, trust, and votes. They seem surprised and aghast every time someone tries to oppose them, like they're totally unaware that's a thing they'd have to deal with. Because they don't fucking listen to anyone.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lisa Needham at Public Notice:

You’re forgiven for forgetting about TikTok for the last couple of days, what with the horrorshow avalanche of executive orders and gleeful deployment of Nazi salutes (plural!) from the world’s richest man. Nonetheless, TikTok is ostensibly banned in the United States as Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly voted only nine months ago to outlaw the app unless its parent company, ByteDance, agreed to sell it. The US Supreme Court even upheld the law just last week. However, TikTok lives, thanks to the whims of Donald Trump, the same person who, in August 2020, issued an executive order giving ByteDance 45 days to sell the app or see it banned. Trump has been extremely transparent that he flip-flopped on TikTok because the app helped him win the election last year, in part because it became a hotbed for criticism of Biden’s support for Israel. “We won young people and I think that's a big credit to TikTok,” Trump told Newsmax earlier this month (even though he in fact lost the youth vote). “So I'm not opposed to TikTok ... I had a very good experience with TikTok." Lost in the current discourse about TikTok is an important conversation about whether it violates the First Amendment to ban a social media app based on national security concerns about its Chinese-owned parent company. Also lost is a debate about whether it’s fair to single out TikTok over worries about user privacy, data harvesting, and manipulative algorithms when such issues are common to all social media platforms. There’s also a discussion to be had about whether singling out TikTok is racist — though there’s a good argument it is. Instead, what’s happening here is the creeping oligarchy of companies and capital aligning around an authoritarian president, with everyone fully aware that sucking up to Trump personally, ideally along with staggering sums of cash, is the only way to evade scrutiny.

[...]

The art of the deal

To be scrupulously fair to Trump, he isn’t the only person who reversed course on TikTok. Once it was clear that the public opposed the ban and that the Supreme Court might not step in to save legislators from themselves, the Biden administration spent last week trying to figure out how to keep TikTok alive. Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Markey introduced legislation to delay by 270 days the initial January 19 deadline for TikTok to be sold, despite having voted for the ban in the first place. The problem these efforts faced, however, is that TikTok wasn’t interested in working with the Biden administration or Senate Democrats to fix the problem. And why would they be, when Democrats are hobbled by a persistent inclination to actually follow laws rather than treat everything as an episode of The Apprentice, where flattering Trump as a master dealmaker is all that matters?

It’s exactly the latter approach that TikTok took. The ban required Google and Apple to remove it from their app stores or face steep fines for each user who downloaded the app. What it did not do, however, was penalize anyone who already had the app on their phone or accessed TikTok on the web. So the real financial peril would initially fall on Google and Apple if they kept the app available. After the Supreme Court decision last week, the Biden administration suggested it would not penalize those companies for continuing to host the app, a move TikTok said didn’t provide them enough “necessary clarity and assurance,” and they would therefore shut down in the United States on January 19. Thus began the public kayfabe of TikTok pretending that only Trump could fix it, knowing full well that he would happily go along. So the app went abruptly, ostentatiously dark on the evening of the January 18, only to pop back up some 12 hours later on January 19 with a gushing message to Trump: “We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive.”

One might note, of course, that Trump was not president on January 19. One might also note that what Trump did promise — basically, that he would not enforce a law passed by Congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court — is not functionally any different than what Biden or Markey were trying to offer, albeit without a demand the company show them personal fealty. But if TikTok had simply left the lights on for those 12 hours and waited for the incoming administration to decide how to enforce the ban, it would have missed the opportunity to let Trump be the savior who brought the app back from the dead. And the one thing social media companies have learned about Trump is that their success will rise and fall with his impulses.

When social media platforms let Trump and his hangers-on say and do whatever they like, he loves them. Once X was purchased by president-unelect Elon Musk, it became transformed into a MAGA megaphone and no longer faces scrutiny from Trump. That’s a change from January 2021, when Trump complained that then-Twitter was “not about FREE SPEECH” after it banned his account following the insurrection. Though Meta didn’t change hands, it still transformed — or more accurately, perhaps, deformed — to meet the new Trump era. CEO Mark Zuckerberg got rid of third-party fact-checking on Facebook, calling it “politically biased,” and revised its hateful speech policy to explicitly allow for attacks on trans people. Zuckerberg donated $1 million to the inauguration, went to church with Trump Monday morning, and hosted a reception Monday night. For the inauguration itself, Zuckerberg, along with Musk, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, and Google head Sundar Pichai, was basically in the front row. Nothing says “incipient oligarchy” like an inauguration dominated by the richest men in the world, private citizens all.

TikTok’s cozying up to Donald Trump is a bad thing.

[agreed-upon-solutions]

Agreed Upon Solutions is built to exemplify a kind of constructive theory of politics. We want to answer the question "what is the best possible democracy," without worrying about the requirements of political feasibility.

If you ask yourself what the most imaginably perfect democracy does, it's something like "Talk about everyone's opinion, on every topic, in order of most to least important. Then everyone votes and reaches consensus about what to do, and that's how the decisions are made."

When the list of issues is small and there aren't too many people, it's possible to do this. But, it doesn't scale. The largest group I'm aware of that does it successfully are the Quakers, and their ability to pull it off is one of the most remarkable acts of community trust I have ever seen; not something that can reasonably expected of a crowd of strangers. So what's the best you can do with a public website?

It turns out there's an answer to this, because doing something very similar is an important problem in the theory of distributed databases. Consider the problem of trying to predict real-world majority opinion using noisy ballots. You want to output "Yes", "No" or "Unknown", for all opinions. Your goal is to say "Yes" or "No" for as many opinions as possible. You are allowed to say "Unknown" whenever you want, but you must never give a wrong answer. This is impossible without assuming an upper bound on the amount of noise, so your goal is to maximize the amount of noise you can handle while still remaining correct. For our examples, we'll assume "Yes" is the majority position.

The noise in the polls is assumed to be Byzantine, a kind of adversarial and unavoidable worst case error. Not only are some votes in your sample guaranteed to be bad, they're bad in the worst possible way, chosen with full knowledge of how your voting system works. This does not just mean always voting "No". They might, for instance, want to blend in if your voting system has some sort of reputation system, to spring their traps at the worst possible moment. In reality, the situation is probably not this dire, but by assuming the worst you can derive the most stable system.

In this system, majority voting does not work. If your vote comes down to 50.1%\49.9%, your adversary could easily change less than a percent of the votes and flip the outcome. Your margin of resistance is 0%.

Let's say you do the opposite, and require a unanimous vote. Then all you need is a single voter to defect, which brings the system to a halt. Your margin of resistance is also 0%.

The optimum threshold turns out to be twothirds.[1][2] A robot can't flip a close decision or block a unanimous decision without having a third of the vote. All you need to do is keep robots below 33% of the vote, which feels like an achievable technical goal.

We're not trying to implement a voting system based on elaborate id checks, we're trying to implement one based on extensive use of fault tolerant algorithms. This is an approach that has not been well studied, because it has some significant downsides: specifically, it does not always reach a decision. Our attitude is that doesn't matter, as long as some questions can reach agreement we'll always be able to make forward progress.

The rest of what we do is similarly involved. There are no direct replies because it makes harassment effectively impossible. We discuss every thing because it's a constructive version of "provide any comment". The "Most Important Thing" pins down a shared answer to an otherwise very vague concept. It's not just limited to voting, either, it extends all the way through the design of the website. If you have an account you can enable "solid mode" in your account preferences to make the website less bouncy on mobile. Why? Because it feels better to touch, and we care about that. Much of what we expect to feel odd about the website is intentional. [3]

This is not a traditional approach to politics. It's a set of ideas unusual enough that it's easier to build, run, and demonstrate that they work in practice; than it is to successfully argue they "would hypothetically work if it were built". That's the core of constructive politics, making arguments by building working examples. It's hard to argue something can't be done when it already exists.

==========

[1] The concept of a "twothirds" is much more involved than simply a number, which is why we write "twothirds" instead of "two-thirds"

[2] Depending on your view of the United States government, the margin of resistance is either one person, nine people, or a few hundred people, for a total margin of resistance of <0.001%. That's why we're facing a possible civil war next week, exciting stuff. \s

[3] This does not include navigational, performance, or conceptual clarity issues. If you experience those, let us know.

[cheepuppp]

Digital Citizenship and Political Engagement: A Double-Edged Sword

Social media was supposed to revolutionize politics, right? Platforms like Twitter and Facebook promised to give power back to the people, connecting us directly to our leaders and each other. And, in some ways, they delivered. Today, hashtags spark global movements, politicians bypass the press to speak directly to voters, and viral memes turn political gaffes into public debates. But here’s the catch: it’s not all sunshine and democracy. Like most things in life, the reality of digital political engagement is way messier and way more interesting.

The Good: Social Media as a Game-Changer

First, let’s give credit where it’s due. Social media has absolutely transformed how politics works. Take Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, for example. Whether you loved or hated him, you couldn’t ignore him and neither could your Twitter feed. Trump’s tweets weren’t just soundbites, they were a direct line to millions of voters, shaping public opinion in real time. As Enli (2017) points out, his “authentic outsider” vibe on social media made him seem relatable to supporters, and that relatability translated into votes.

But it’s not just about big names. Grassroots movements like Malaysia’s Bersih 2.0 also used social media to mobilize support and demand electoral reform. Johns and Cheong (2019) describe how Bersih activists used Facebook and Twitter to bypass traditional media censorship, rallying people with emotional posts and hashtags. That “networked affect” those raw, viral moments created a sense of shared purpose that brought thousands into the streets.

The Bad: The Dark Side of Digital Citizenship

Of course, there’s a flip side to all this. Social media is great at amplifying voices, but it’s also great at creating echo chambers. Algorithms feed us what we want to see, which is fantastic for keeping us entertained but terrible for meaningful political discourse. Instead of healthy debates, we get polarized shouting matches where everyone thinks they’re right, and no one’s actually listening.

And let’s not forget misinformation. Remember the Cambridge Analytica scandal? Facebook data was weaponized to target voters with political ads designed to manipulate their choices. It’s a stark reminder that while social media feels empowering, it can also be used to exploit us. As Choi and Cristol (2021) point out, true digital citizenship requires more than just access, it demands education, critical thinking, and inclusion.

The Meh: Low-Cost Engagement

Then there’s the issue of “low-cost” political engagement. Retweet a hashtag, like a post, or share a petition, and boom you’re a political activist, right? Not exactly. Bode (2017) calls this the “gateway behavior” of political engagement. It’s a great start, but if all we do is click buttons, are we really making a difference? Hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter or #MeToo can create massive awareness, but the real question is: do they lead to action? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It’s complicated.

Personal Reflection

If I’m being honest, I’ve definitely fallen into the trap of slacktivism. It’s so easy to retweet a catchy hashtag and feel like you’ve done your part. But over time, I’ve realized that real political engagement takes more effort. During the last election, I used Instagram stories to share voter guides and info about local candidates, and it felt more impactful than just liking someone else’s post. Don’t get me wrong, social media is powerful. But it’s just a tool, and how we use it makes all the difference.

Conclusion

Social media has changed the game when it comes to political engagement, for better and worse. It’s made politics more accessible, allowing people to participate in ways that were unthinkable a decade ago. But it’s also created new challenges: echo chambers, misinformation, and slacktivism. As digital citizens, we need to go beyond the surface. Retweets and likes are great, but real change happens when we take those online conversations offline. The power is in our hands, literally.

References

Bode, L. (2017). Gateway Political Behaviors: The Frequency and Consequences of Low-Cost Political Engagement on Social Media. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117743349

Choi, M., & Cristol, D. (2021). Digital citizenship with an intersectionality lens: Towards participatory democracy-driven digital citizenship education. Theory Into Practice, 60(4), 361-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1987094

Enli, G. (2017). Twitter as an arena for the authentic outsider: Exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. European Journal of Communication, 32(1), 50-61. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0267323116682802

Johns, A., & Cheong, N. (2019). Feeling the Chill: Bersih 2.0, State Censorship, and “Networked Affect” on Malaysian Social Media 2012–2018. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118821801

[govindhtech]

Quantum Annealing Correction Tackles Spin-Glass Problems

Quantum-Annealing Correction

Scalable Spin-Glass Optimisation Benefits from Quantum Annealing Correction

Quantum annealing, a cutting-edge computer approach that uses quantum evolution to find low-energy states, has long showed promise for tackling optimisation problems. However, noise and decoherence have generally hindered practical solutions, limiting scalability and performance. Recent pioneering work on Quantum Annealing Correction (QAC) has shown that quantum annealers scale better than the best conventional heuristic techniques for several tough issues. The first algorithmic quantum speedup in approximate optimisation has been shown.

The unique error-suppression approach Quantum Annealing Correction was meticulously developed to improve quantum annealing performance and durability. Directly incorporating a bit-flip error-correcting code with energy penalties into quantum annealing achieves this. Three physical “data qubits” represent a single logical qubit in the Quantum Annealing Correction encoding. Importantly, each data qubit has an extra “energy penalty qubit” with a defined coupling strength, $J_p$.

The logical qubit's state is determined by a data qubit majority vote. This advanced implementation uses the D-Wave Advantage quantum annealer's Pegasus graph to create more than 1,300 error-suppressed logical qubits on a degree-5 interaction graph, allowing for the resolution of large problems with 142 to 1,322 qubits.

Quantum Annealing Correction strongly demonstrated its benefits using high-precision spin-spin interactions in 2D spin-glass situations. Spin-glass situations are ideal for testing an algorithm's ability to handle complex solution spaces due to their complicated energy landscapes with many local minima. Sidon-28 (S28) disorder requires precise interaction values, hence the effort focused on it. These examples are especially susceptible to analogue coupling defects, or “J-chaos,” therefore QAC's error-suppression capabilities were expected to be beneficial.

Quantum Annealing Correction was compared to Parallel Tempering with Isoenergetic Cluster Moves, the best classical heuristic solution for spin-glass problems. By modelling several systems with periodic state swaps at different temperatures, PT-ICM avoids local minima and enhances optimisation efficiency. Performance was measured using the time-to-epsilon (TT$\epsilon$) metric, which prioritises speed over accuracy and prioritises approximation responses within a certain error tolerance.

This metric optimises noise and annealing schedules to boost performance. They show that quantum annealing scales better than PT-ICM with Quantum Annealing Correction, especially for low-energy states with an optimality gap of at least 1.0%.

Quantum Annealing Correction outperformed PT-ICM at a smaller optimality gap of 0.85%, scaling best among quantum approaches. All quantum approaches, including QAC, C3, and their fast-schedule counterparts, reduced algorithmic runtime by four orders of magnitude compared to PT-ICM, the study found. Due to CPU speeds, this absolute speedup was not the major focus for claiming a robust scaling advantage.

QAC suppresses errors better than classical repetition coding (C3), which is why it works. The baseline C3 technique encodes issues on the logical Quantum Annealing Correction graph by deactivating the penalty coupling ($J_p = 0$), creating three parallel, uncoupled copies of the problem instance that are used to extract quantum annealing samples. Although C3 provides some fundamental parallelism, the findings confirm past studies on the effect of analogue coupling flaws (“J-chaos”) on quantum annealing performance. QAC consistently outscales C3.

These defects demonstrate the importance of improved error correction and suppression, especially in high-precision settings like S28 spin-glass. A Kibble-Zurek (KZ) ansatz investigation of dynamical critical scaling also proved QAC's efficacy. The KZ exponent for Quantum Annealing Correction (with a penalty strength of 0.1) was $\mu_{QAC} = 5.7 \pm 0.10$, significantly lower than C3's $\mu_{C3} = 7.79 \pm 0.26$, indicating suppression of diabatic excitations. QAC reduces diabatic errors and J-chaos, enhancing TT$\epsilon$ and reducing optimal annealing times by promoting adiabatic dynamics at equal annealing durations.

Using up to 1,322 logical qubits in an error-corrected context, this remarkable demonstration advances quantum advantage. Tunnelling is a likely cause of the claimed speedup, although more investigation is needed. This shows how quantum annealing can solve optimisation challenges in many industries that were previously intractable.

Beyond finite-range and two-dimensional problem families, quantum optimisation must apply this hardware-scalable advantage to densely coupled challenges and achieve efficacy at increasingly smaller optimality gaps. This groundbreaking study shows how crucial sophisticated error correction and suppression strategies are to maximise the potential of current and future quantum annealing technology.

[kalehere]

An age narrative swap from Biden to Trump wouldn't have the impact many are hoping for. 1. Perception - It was all about image and even though Trump and Biden are really close in age, Trump's energy made him seem more youthful. 2. The narrative was crafted against Biden, but no one that was going to vote against Biden would have done so due to his age. Flipping the age discussion wouldn't flip voters. 3. The narrative was fanned from the right and blasted by trolls, bots, and foreign actors hoping to re-elect Trump. Then (the TikTok) algorithm elevated those to a constant hot button item.

As a buddy of mine put it: > Democrats will have trouble pivoting to it in soundbite attack ads because the Democratic narrative is that Trump is a threat to democracy. They have to highlight his age more as an indicator of him being out-of-touch or unconcerned-with-consequence rather than of weakness or unreliability. Trump being perceived as weak or near dying could diminish the potential threat posed and reduce voter engagement. And Democrats pivoting too hard on the age issue could turn off voters already disaffected with the DNC who feel tired of being told what to think and when rather than the party either listening to those concerns in a timely fashion or sticking to principles through at least a campaign/election cycle.

Age is not an issue for corporate media in the bag with patriarchy and white supremacy.

Just like the caravans that disappear the day after an election, expect the press to show zero interest in Trump's mental decline and age after Biden's exit.

[hidayah193]

Democracy and Technology: Navigating the Digital Era

The Digital Revolution:

The advent of the internet and the subsequent digital revolution have transformed the way societies communicate, access information, and engage in political discourse. Social media platforms, in particular, have become powerful tools for political mobilization, allowing citizens to connect, share ideas, and participate in discussions on a global scale. However, this digital connectivity also raises concerns about the spread of misinformation, echo chambers, and the potential manipulation of public opinion through targeted algorithms.

Transparency and Accountability:

Technology has the potential to enhance transparency and accountability within democratic systems. Open data initiatives, online government portals, and digital communication channels enable citizens to access information, monitor government activities, and participate more actively in the decision-making process. However, the flip side of this transparency is the challenge of protecting individual privacy and preventing the misuse of personal data, prompting debates around the delicate balance between openness and security.

E-Voting and Digital Democracy:

The introduction of electronic voting systems and digital platforms for civic engagement has promised to streamline the democratic process, making it more accessible and inclusive. While these innovations offer the potential to increase voter turnout and facilitate broader citizen participation, concerns about the security and integrity of digital voting systems persist. Striking the right balance between convenience and safeguarding the democratic process remains a critical challenge.

The Threat of Technological Authoritarianism:

As governments leverage technology for surveillance, censorship, and control, Telkom University the line between democracy and authoritarianism becomes increasingly blurred. Facial recognition, social credit systems, and other surveillance technologies pose a threat to individual freedoms and civil liberties, raising questions about the potential erosion of democratic values in the face of technological advancements.

Digital Divide and Inequality:

The digital divide, the gap between those who have access to technology and those who do not, exacerbates existing social and economic inequalities. Unequal access to information and digital tools can marginalize certain demographics, limiting their ability to fully participate in democratic processes. Bridging this divide is essential to ensuring that the benefits of technology are accessible to all citizens.

Conclusion:

The relationship between democracy and technology is a dynamic and evolving one, presenting both opportunities and challenges. Striking a balance between the advantages of technological innovation and the preservation of democratic principles requires thoughtful regulation, ethical considerations, and a commitment to inclusivity. As we navigate the digital era, societies must actively engage in discussions about the impact of technology on democratic processes, seeking solutions that empower citizens while upholding the fundamental tenets of democracy.

[pickacover]

FAQ

Q: What is this?

A: Glad you asked! This is a poll blog where you get to listen to different versions of a song and vote on which one you like best. Please note this is “which one you like,” not “which artist is your favorite” or “which one is more technically good.” Sometimes a great artist can have a shit cover and vice versa, and sometimes an artist you adore does a cover that makes you cringe or has an original someone else just managed to turn transcendent. And sometimes it’s your favorite because you have good memories even if the cover itself is objectively awful! That’s also okay! The question is, if all covers of the song came on the radio at the same time, which channel’s version would you flip to?

Q: how often do you post?

A: five times a day.

Q: what’s the point?

A: Lord, let me never live in a world where I’ve forgotten whimsy.

Q: Have you done [song]?

A: search the blog for the title.

Q: you haven’t done [song]!

A: submit the song title and the name of the original artist.

Q: are multicover matchups okay?

A: ah, you got here from the Personal Jesus post. Yes, they’re good! If a song has more than nine total covers, they will not all be included, and the most prominent nine will get preference.

Q: Are there matchups you won’t do?

A: animated Disney/live-action remake, musical stage recordings/other recordings of the same musical, stage recording/movie recording, solo artist/something they originally sang with a band, original of a song/its biopic version, Christmas carols, Kidz Bop, anything by Cole Porter. Most of these are intended to sound as much alike as possible so it’s kind of pointless, and while we love and respect and adore Cole Porter in this house, the problem is there are literally hundreds, possibly thousands, of covers of his songs. Someone could probably entertain Tumblr for a month with a seeded matchup poll of Cole Porter song covers. It’s beyond my ability to do.

Q: what about self-covers?

A: self-covers are postable IF the cover makes substantial changes to the original. Examples of this are changing the genre (You + I/You + I Country Roads Edition), language (Space Oddity/Ragazzo Solo Ragazzo Sola), or a significant portion of the lyrics (Eve of Destruction/Eve 2012). Radio edits aren’t eligible except in rare extreme cases like Call Me By Your Name and I’ve No More Fucks to Give. The rule of thumb on that one is “if someone only three-quarters listening would stop and go ‘wait, what?’ then it qualifies.”

Q: what about live versions?

A: an artist’s live version will always sound different than their album version and often vary from show to show, so no. With that said, many cover versions involve an artist covering another artist live for an encore or just for kicks and giggles and they never get “officially” recorded by the covering artist, so submitting original album/a live recording by another artist is just fine. You’ll need to let me know which live I’m looking for, though. (Or better yet, link me.)

Q: what about classical music?

A: I’m gonna level with you, I have no idea how this would work. Like….are we talking about playing Pachelbel on wineglasses or something? I’m going to go ahead and say okay, but whatever you’re submitting as the cover is going to have to be pretty transformative.

Q: I’m not American and there’s this song from my home country/my own language…

A: PLEASE DO. I will request if you wish to make such a submission, please link me to both the original and the cover because I can’t guarantee the YouTube algorithm will do so. But you’re quite welcome here and I’d love to hear what you’ve got!

Q: this artist/song/album is problematic! You shouldn’t post their work!

A: if I started removing artists based on being problematic, 1) there would be nobody left 2) Taylor Swift would be the first to go. Is this the hill you want to die on?

[kinialohaguy]

Clint Curtis | 70% of USA doesn't trust voting machines

[ailtrahq]

The price of Terra Classic (LUNC) has seen a decline of 3% throughout the preceding 24-hour period, resulting in its value dropping to $0.00005852. Consequently, this altcoin now occupies the 90th position in the hierarchy of cryptocurrency market capitalization rankings. LUNC has seen a decrease of 9% over the course of the previous week. Although it has shown an increase of 3% over the last 14 days, it continues to exhibit a decline of 1% over the span of a month and a substantial decrease of 81% over the last year. The observed declines indicate a sustained downward trend that has affected LUNC since 2023. The community associated with the currency has encountered difficulties in their efforts to enhance the value of both LUNC and its associated stablecoin, USTC. It seems probable that LUNC will have a sustained decline in the future, prompting Finbold to delve into the employment of machine learning algorithms by PricePredictions, a cryptocurrency monitoring and prediction platform, on October 4. The objective was to assess the potential price of LUNC at the end of October based on the latest developments. According to the analysis, Terra Classic is projected to decline to $0.000055 by October 31. The prediction is gathered by using several key technical indicators, including the moving average convergence divergence (MACD), relative strength index (RSI), Bollinger Bands (BB), and more.  However, if proactive measures are implemented to enhance its ecosystem and value, there is a possibility of a subsequent resurgence in its price. Traders losing interest in LUNC Technical signs show that LUNC is sliding again after riding the market rebound on Monday, October 2. Several recently agreed governance changes have not significantly impacted LUNC’s price, suggesting that the broader market has lost interest in the cryptocurrency. New to the ballot for Terra Luna Classic is a proposal to support a team of developers with the stated goal of implementing a comprehensive roadmap of enhancements and adding “value to the Terra Classic blockchain so that we can help push this chain where it deserves to go.” Voted "NO" to #LUNC proposal 11828 by the six samurai.While there is no deny the mentioned road map is exactly what the chain needs. However, there is no guarantee it can be realized.You dont agree ? Lets have a discussion 👇 pic.twitter.com/5GDpkQLcHt— Nameer | StellarDrift 🛰️ (@StellarDrift__) October 3, 2023 Terra Classic chart analysis Diving into the current market dynamics, Terra Classic is navigating the intricate web of value with its current trading price at $0.00005852. A discernible 3.16% downturn within the last 24 hours and a more substantial 9.81% decrease over the week presents a nuanced narrative. LUNC 7-day price chart. Source: Finbold Now, shifting focus to LUNC’s price analysis we take a deeper plunge into the intricacies of its price action. The resistance level, standing at $0.00006, acts as a psychological barrier where selling pressure tends to intensify. On the flip side, its support level at $0.00005 denotes a critical threshold where buying interest tends to materialize. This interplay between resistance and support levels unveils the underlying tug-of-war within LUNC’s market ecosystem.  The content on this site should not be considered investment advice. Investing is speculative. When investing, your capital is at risk.

[thedigitalhorizon]

The Role of Technology in Modern Democracy: A Double-Edged Sword

In an era where the digital landscape is ever-evolving its inclufence on our lives in inescapable. From social networks that keep us connected 24/7, to platforms that have democratized knowledge, technology seems to be the driving force of modern society. But have you ever stopped to consider its impact on our democracy? Let's delve into the complex relationship between technology and modern democracy—a relationship that's both promising and fraught with peril.

Increased Accessibility: Democracy at Your Fingertips

One of the shining achievements of technology is how it has made democracy more accessible. Gone are the days when town hall meetings and door-to-door campaining were the only ways to engage with your community. Today, you can Tweet your local representative, participate in online forums, and even host digital petitions. Apps like Nextdoor and platforms like Change.org are empowering local communities to have a say in their governance.

Transparency and Accountability: Can Big Data Keep Big Brother in Check?

We often hear about "Big Data" in the context of marketing or even surveillance. But the flip side is that it can serve as a powerful tool for transparency. Various countries are implementing blockchain technology to ensure transparent voting systems. Moreover, data analytics can track how funds are used in public projects, rooting out corruption and fostering accountability.

Information Overload: The Dark Side of Digital Freedom

While it's amazing to have information at our fingertips, the downside is the sheer volume that we have to sift through. The rise of "fake news" and the spread of misinformation poses serious threats to an informed electorate. Recall the Cambridge Analytica scandal? It perfectly illustrates how information can be manipulated to subvert democratic processes.

Data Security: The Achilles Heel of Digital Democracy?

With great power comes great responsibility. This is especially true for technology’s role in safeguarding our democratic systems. From concerns about foreign interference in elections to alarming data leaks, digital democracy is vulnerable. It poses a difficult question: How can we balance the need for open, accessible systems with the need for security?

Automation and AI: Algorithmic Democracy or Digital Despotism?

Technology isn’t just limited to social media or data analytics; it also includes automation and AI. Estonia, for instance, uses a machine learning algorithm to allocate its police forces, leading to a dramatic reduction in crime rates. However, the use of algorithms for public decision-making also raises serious ethical concerns. Who writes the code? Who ensures it is free from bias?

Conclusion: The Road Ahead

So, is technology a boon or a bane for modern democracy? The answer, as with most things, is not black and white. Technology offers incredible opportunities for enhancing democratic processes but also introduces challenges that require vigilant oversight and ethical considerations.

The road ahead is filled with both challenges and opportunities. But one thing is clear: technology is here to stay, and it's up to us to ensure that we harness its immense power for the greater good of our democratic systems. After all, democracy is of the people, by the people, and for the people—even in the digital age.

Thank you for reading! Stay tuned to The Digital Horizon for more insights, tips, and recommendations on navigating the digital world.

[nzhdehby]

CNN  — 

For all the interest in big-name witnesses and eye-opening private text messages, at the core of the defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News are 20 specific broadcasts and tweets in which the voting company says Fox knowingly promoted lies, destroying its reputation.

According to the lawsuit, all 20 statements took place between November 8, 2020, and January 26, 2021, and came in the form of on-air comments from Fox hosts Jeanine Pirro, Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo; interviews with prominent pro-Trump election deniers Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Lindell; and several of Dobbs’ tweets.

The wild allegations in the statements fell into four broad categories: that Dominion conducted election fraud, that it used algorithms to flip votes, that it had ties to Venezuela and that politicians received kickbacks to use the company.

The judge overseeing the defamation trial has already ruled that these allegations were false, saying it is “CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.”

At trial, it will be a jury’s job to determine if the statements were made with “actual malice” – a high bar based on knowing falseness or having a reckless disregard for the truth – and potentially award damages. Dominion has asked for $1.6 billion in damages and additional punitive damages, a number Fox says is wildly overblown.

Fox has denied wrongdoing and said the case is a meritless assault on press freedoms. Lawyers for Fox have argued that Dominion hasn’t come close to clearing the high bar to prove defamation.

Here’s a closer look at those 20 specific broadcasts and tweets of alleged defamation.

The broadcast: “Sunday Morning Futures” on November 8, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud and algorithm flips.

Key false quote: “Sidney, we talked about the Dominion software. I know that there were voting irregularities. Tell me about that,” Bartiromo said.

“That’s to put it mildly. The computer glitches could not and should not have happened at all,” Powell said. “That is where the fraud took place where they were flipping votes in the computer system or adding votes that did not exist.”

The broadcast: “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on November 12, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud and Venezuela ties.

Key false quote: “So, we’re using a foreign company that is owned by Venezuelans who are close to – were close to (Hugo) Chávez, are now close to (Nicolás) Maduro, have a history. They were founded as a company to fix elections, they have a terrible record, and they are extremely hackable,” Giuliani said.

The broadcast: “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on November 13, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud, algorithm flips, Venezuela ties, kickbacks.

Key false quote: “Let’s start with Dominion, a straight out disavowal of any claim of fraud against the company, its software or machines. Your reaction,” Dobbs asked.

“Well, I can hardly wait to put forth all the evidence we have collected on Dominion, starting with the fact it was created to produce altered voting results in Venezuela for Hugo Chavez and then shipped internationally to manipulate votes for purchase in other countries, including this one,” Powell said.

“We also need to look at and we’re beginning to collect evidence on the financial interests of some of the governors and Secretaries of State who actually bought into the Dominion Systems … to line their own pockets by getting a voting machine in that would either make sure their election was successful or they got money for their family from it,” she added.

“Well, that’s straightforward,” Dobbs said. “You’re going to have to be quick to go through and to produce that investigation and the results of it.”

The broadcast: Quote-tweet by Dobbs of Giuliani tweet on November 14, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud, algorithm flips, Venezuela ties.

Key false quote: “Did you know a foreign company, DOMINION, was counting our vote in Michigan, Arizona and Georgia and other states,” Giuliani wrote.

“Read all about Dominion and Smartmatic voting companies and you’ll soon understand how pervasive this Democrat electoral fraud is, and why there’s no way in the world the 2020 Presidential election was either free or fair. #MAGA @realDonaldTrump #AmericaFirst #Dobbs,” Dobbs wrote.

The broadcast: “Justice with Judge Jeanine” on November 14, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud, algorithm flips, Venezuela ties.

Key false quote: “It was created for the express purpose of being able to alter votes and secure the reelection of Hugo Chavez and then Maduro. They’ve used it in Argentina,” Powell said. “There is an American citizen who has exported it to other countries and it is one huge, huge criminal conspiracy that should be investigated by military intelligence for its national security implications.”

“Yes. And hopefully the Department of Justice, but who knows anymore,” Pirro said.

The broadcast: “Fox & Friends Sunday” on November 15, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud, algorithm flips, Venezuela ties, kickbacks.

Key false quote: “Sidney Powell is also talking about potential kickbacks that government officials, who were asked to use Dominion, actually also enjoyed benefits to their families,” Bartiromo said. “We’re going to talk about that coming up as well.”

The broadcast: “Sunday Morning Futures” on November 15, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud, algorithm flips, Venezuela ties, kickbacks.

Key false quote: “We have sworn witness testimony of why the software was designed. It was designed to rig elections … We have so much evidence, I feel like it’s coming in through a fire hose,” Powell said.

“Wow,” Bartiromo said.

The broadcast: “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on November 16, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud, algorithm flips, Venezuela ties.

Key false quote: “I’ve just gotten some stunning evidence from a firsthand witness, a high-ranking military officer, who was present when Smartmatic was designed in a way that – and I’m going to just read to you some of these statements, if you don’t mind, so I get them exactly right,” Powell said.

“Sure,” Dobbs said.

Powell continued, “From the affidavit, (Smartmatic was) ‘designed in a way that the system could change the vote of each voter without being detected.’”

Powell also incorrectly claimed that Smartmatic owns Dominion.

The broadcast: “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on November 18, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud, algorithm flips, Venezuela ties.

Key false quote: “But I mean just the mere fact that we have a foreign country, we had this in a foreign country, done by friends of an enemy of the United States, Maduro, is outrageous and has to stop immediately,” Giuliani said.

“It’s outrageous,” Dobbs said.

The broadcast: “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on November 19, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud, algorithm flips, Venezuela ties.

Key false quote: “Let me put it this way, there are thousands of people in federal prisons on far less evidence of criminal conduct than we have already against the Smartmatic and Dominion Systems companies,” Powell said.

The broadcast: “Justice with Judge Jeanine” on November 21, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud, algorithm flips, Venezuela ties.

Key false quote: “The President’s lawyers alleging a company called Dominion, which they say started in Venezuela with Cuban money, and with the assistance of Smartmatic software, a backdoor is capable of flipping votes,” Pirro said.

The broadcast: “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on November 24, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud, algorithm flips, Venezuela ties.

Key false quote: “We are just continuing to be inundated by evidence of all the frauds here and every manner and means of fraud you could possibly think of,” Powell said.

“I think many Americans have given no thought to electoral fraud that would be perpetrated through electronic voting; that is, these machines, these electronic voting companies, including Dominion, prominently Dominion, at least in the suspicions of a lot of Americans,” Dobbs said.

The broadcast: “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on November 30, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud, algorithm flips, kickbacks.

Key false quote: “Different states shaved different amounts of votes, or the system was set up to shave and flip different votes in different states,” Powell said. “Some people were targeted as individual candidates. It’s really the most massive and historical egregious fraud the world has ever seen.”

The broadcast: “Hannity” on November 30, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud and algorithm flips.

Key false quote: “The machine ran an algorithm that shaved votes from Trump and awarded them to Biden,” Powell said. “They used the machines to trash large batches of votes that should have been awarded to President Trump. And they used a machine to inject and add massive quantities of votes for Mr. Biden.”

The broadcast: “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on December 4, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud and algorithm flips.

Key false quote: “Dominion Voting Systems, you have described it with algorithms which were designed to be inaccurate rather than to be a secure system,” Dobbs said.

“Give us your sense of who is driving all of this,” Dobbs asked Phil Waldron, a Trump supporter who worked with Powell and others to spread conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.

The broadcast: Dobbs tweet with embedded document on December 10, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud and algorithm flips.

Key false quote: “The 2020 Election is a cyber Pearl Harbor,” Dobbs wrote, embedding a document.

“We have technical presentations that prove there is an embedded controller in every Dominion machine, that allows an election supervisor to move votes from one candidate to another,” the document stated.

The broadcast: “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on December 10, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud, algorithm flips, Venezuela ties.

Key false quote: “Let me make you an offer, very straightforwardly,” Dobbs said. “We will gladly put forward your evidence that supports your claim that this was a Cyber Pearl Harbor. We have tremendous evidence already … of fraud in this election, but I will be glad to put forward on this broadcast whatever evidence you have, and we’ll be glad to do it immediately.”

The broadcast: Dobbs tweet with embedded video of Powell interview on December 10, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud.

Key false quote: “Cyber Pearl Harbor: @SidneyPowell1 reveals groundbreaking new evidence indicating our Presidential election came under massive cyber-attack orchestrated with the help of Dominion, Smartmatic, and foreign adversaries. #MAGA #AmericaFirst #Dobbs,” Dobbs wrote.

The broadcast: “Fox & Friends” with hosts Will Cain, Pete Hegseth and Rachel Campos-Duffy on December 12, 2020.

What they alleged: Election fraud.

Key false quote: “We have a machine, the Dominion machine, that’s as filled with holes as Swiss cheese and was developed to steal elections, and being used in the states that are involved,” Giuliani said.

The broadcast: “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on January 26, 2021.

What they alleged: Election fraud.

Key false quote: “Every outlet in the country, they go, ‘Mike Lindell, there’s no evidence, and he’s making fraudulent statements.’ No. I have the evidence. I dare people to put it on. I dare Dominion to sue me because then it will get out faster. So, this is – you know, they don’t – they don’t want to talk about it,” Lindell said.

“No, they don’t,” Carlson said.

Source Link: Here are the 20 specific Fox broadcasts and tweets Dominion says were defamatory