Well, if we reach that, your support is also not very meaningful.

There’s no such thing as a “conservative lefty” or whatever you wrote earlier.

Communist Party of the Soviet Union would seem to be exactly that.

Yeah, “they” matters not about the source, but about what the audience thinks.

No. Conservatism can be that and can be skepticism to idealism in all forms.

The Russian example would be the popular belief of some people that presidential power should be made stronger in the 90s, and then of some other people that everything western is just better from the root and larping is enough, and then of another group of people that they can take modern (by year 2012) Russia’s common idea of “respectable” and “cool” and make it compatible with honesty and justice and their own survival.

The American example would be - well, I think Fox News is good enough, what they started with was (of what I’ve read) the typical American idea of “alternative” and “anti-establishment”, which is good in itself, just believing that there’s a side offering that or that there’s a way to move the world in that direction radically, - these are dangerous idiocies.

The “youthly liberal modern” idea of cool of 2010s in the social media, that I’ve recently remembered, is too a good example. When virtually all of the crowd was uncritically accepting that people at whom corporate policies point and say “they are homophobes, extremists and what’s the worst of all - uncool”, are really that.

One meaning of the word “conservatism” is being skeptical of such things. One can be conservative-left. It’s just that people don’t like nuance.

And it makes perfect sense that before reading this many people felt that they clearly see Russian bots vanishing.

Human psychology is just not equipped for open Web. Especially social media kind of it. F2F and personal webpages and circles of friends are fine, but anything crowd-related is worse than sending pigeons.

No pair of different CPU models is an apples to apples comparison. But comparing two CPUs of the same ISA with similar implementations using tact frequencies and core numbers and cache sizes might make sense. Like two AMD Ryzen CPUs or two Intel CPUs.

OK, I mean, there are benchmarks for this kind of thing.

I suppose people allowed near him are already sufficiently background-checked and threat-impressed.

Of what I’ve heard about Putin and computers, it’s very probable this PC is running some hardened Linux distribution made look like Windows, or even a specialized OS developed for him specifically, and all it does is show previously prepared pictures and run some narrow-function native applications too developed specifically for the occasion.

And it’s probably not a persistent installation. And it’ll probably be destroyed after he’s done with voting or “voting”.

And I can’t imagine it not being air-gapped with the kind of security measures they write about in other things.

And I’m probably confidently wrong in many things, just the security part with computers that man seems to take seriously enough.

Honestly this is right, when you are considering how wary you should be of this or that thing, it’s good to pay attention to what powerful people are doing of what seems more or less certain. They, of course, can afford some things impractical for you or me.

That’s bad, but good, at least not in every metric this reduces inequality of real power.

Almost that ancap dream of ancaps 3d-printing small drones keeping the statists in line, a peer-to-peer revolution, so to say, a smoothie anarchist rebellion, to abolish the cryptocurrencies’ Sound Toll.

I know that always seemed fake and childish (I liked the idea, but still), except looking how that really can eventually start happening with propagation of such power, I’m not sure it is.