You have to kill her, Bill

EsFeo
There is this episode of Battlestar Galactica in which Admiral Caine arrives, out of the blue, and assumes command of the civilian flotilla -- the last remnants of their species -- previously lead by the Battlestar Galactica.
@fieryUSA
because net neutrality is considered 'censorship', according to republicans.  their universe is so fucking twisted, i don't know how they wake up in the morning.
EsFeo
President Roslin and Captain Adama attempt to speak to her and try to convince Admiral Caine of the civilian superiority in regards to the ultimate value of the fleet.
Admiral Caine refuses to listen, insisting that the civilian fleet must server the military counterstrike, which would be hopeless, against the Cylons.
Sorry, Commander Adama.
After Admiral Caine takes her leave, Commander Adama and President Roslin look noticeably distressed.
President Roslin leans over to Commander Adama and, with no irony, says, "You have to killed her, Bill."
Donald Trump is a threat to all mankind.
His legitimate victory in the US Presidential election does not negate that fact.
Ideally, the properly functioning appratuses of state -- whether America, foreign, or international -- would, non-violently, arrest him for treason and corruption, with a pre-emptive view on war crimes against humanity.
Failing this, it becomes moral for Donald Trump to be killed in a coup.
EsFeo
America has participated in the extrajudicial killings of those humans it deems are too dangerous and who refuse to play ball by the rules established by the USA.
fieryUSA: here's the real deal
And it's what I was speaking about the other day
The idea of universal, uniform (one person, one vote on all issues), in our system, stems from the 18th century.
It appears this model may not work as well as other possible models.
Specifically, cognitive science and psychology have helped us gain some real insight into the thought and emotional patterns of our species.
I think we need to work towards a system with dynamic voting power based off long-term capability, acute mental state, and issue.
So, you have a history of saying stupid stuff on climate change, you get zero votes on climate change.
If you are a world leader in climate change research, you get 50,000 votes on climate change issues.
So, even by 1787, the Framers understood there were certain mental/social states humans could find themselves that would lead to ruin.
The mob mentality of factions (extensively discussed in the Federalist Papers).
The cruelty and idiocy that comes from religious belief (being with the Peace of Westphalia, Europeans systematically began removing Christianity from governance of the state)
Uniform voting is one mechanism used in some distributed computing models
It's also quite often not used, as it isn't optimal for a range of problem domains
For example, uniform voting can be used, I think, to solve the split-brain problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain_(computing)
+|Ael|
Split-brain (computing) - Wikipedia
EsFeo
It can also be used by the operating system to determine which process has access to the CPU core
Typically, however, there is a notion of priority in most operating systems because research indicates it is better
Of course, it depends on your goals for the computing device
An extreme example would be in real-time operating systems often found on spacecraft. Here, uniform voting/priority would be disastrous. Instead, there are very robust notions of asymmetric, ranked value of processes
The linux kernel uses some modified priority system for deciding which process has access to the CPU
Hmm, that may be wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completely_Fair_Scheduler
+|Ael|
Completely Fair Scheduler - Wikipedia
EsFeo
"CFS is an implementation of a well-studied, classic scheduling algorithm called weighted fair queuing.[4]"
"Weighted fair queueing (WFQ) is a data packet scheduling algorithm used by network schedulers. WFQ is both a packet based implementation of the generalized processor sharing policy (GPS), and a natural generalization of fair queuing (FQ): whereas FQ shares the link's capacity in equal subparts, WFQ allows to specify, for each flow, which fraction of the capacity will be given."
So, it can be both