welcome to debate #1, night 2. the first thread on this turned out to be about twice as active as i was expecting (i estimated at most 50 or so replies), and that was for the "undercard" so unless something changes with this night, i think we'll be doing these in pairs from here on out--at least until either the DNC pushes out enough candidates for one debate, or activity drops significantly in these threads. previous night's thread can be found here if you'd like to continue the discussions of last night's candidates. anyways here are all the details you'd ever need, and probably then some:

first off, i recommend you sort by newest first instead of the default since this thread will likely be semi-active and covering a live event.

How to Watch:

The debate is being broadcast by NBC News, MSNBC and Telemundo, and will air live across all three networks starting at 9 p.m. ET.
Telemundo will broadcast the debate in Spanish.
The debate will stream online free on NBC News' digital platforms, including NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, the NBC News Mobile App and OTT apps on Roku, Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV, in addition to Telemundo's digital platforms.

livestreams will also be available on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube because the DNC mandated that of its partners for the debates.

The Candidates:

Democratic Presidential Debate: See The 20 Candidates Who Will Be Onstage

• Michael Bennet (Senator from Colorado)

Bennet is running on fixing a broken political system, the blame for which he puts at the feet of Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell. Bennet says spending from wars and tax cuts was essentially the U.S. lighting “money on fire.”

• Joe Biden (Former vice president)

Biden’s top concern is less about reshaping America and more about returning America to “normalcy.” He argues that if President Trump gets another four years, the DNA of the country will be fundamentally altered.

• Pete Buttigieg (Mayor of South Bend, Ind.)

The 37-year-old is making a generational-change argument. He argues for progressive processes — like fixing redistricting and voting rights — in addition to policies — like being more cautious on war and more progressive on climate change and health care.

• Kirsten Gillibrand (Senator from New York)

She’s focused on women’s rights, especially when it comes to health care. She boasts that a Fox host called her “not very polite” for speaking out about the “nationwide assault on women’s reproductive freedoms” and “fundamental human rights for women.”

• Kamala Harris (Senator from California)

Harris’ slogan is “for the people,” and she’s making the case that President Trump is a “fraud.” The former prosecutor says Trump is fighting for the wrong people — the powerful and wealthy — while she wants to “advocate for the voiceless and vulnerable.”

• John Hickenlooper (Former governor of Colorado)

The centrist has a pragmatic message. He says pragmatists aren’t against big things; they know how to get them done. He has also spoken out against Democrats’ lurch toward socialism, warning that moving in that direction would reelect President Trump.

• Bernie Sanders (Senator from Vermont)

Sanders wants to beat President Trump, but he believes the way to do it is not with “middle-ground” approaches, but with promising wholesale progressive change. He’s the only candidate willing to wear the (democratic) socialist label.

• Eric Swalwell (Representative from California’s 15th District)

He has focused his campaign on ending gun violence in the country, targeting semiautomatic assault weapons in particular by calling for a mandatory national ban and buyback.

• Marianne Williamson (Spiritual guru, entrepreneur)

The New Age author is campaigning with a philosophy of “Think. Love. Participate.” As an outsider to politics, she believes change needs to come from the outside and that “half-truth tellers” can’t beat President Trump.

• Andrew Yang (Founder of Venture for America)

The startup investor is running on a data-first approach to the presidency. His big idea is to address the threat of automation with a Universal Basic Income, in which every adult would get $1,000 a month.

The Rules:

Candidates will have 60 seconds to answer questions and 30 seconds to respond to follow-ups. No opening statements, though candidates will have a chance to deliver closing remarks.
Five segments each night separated by four commercial breaks.

The Analysis:

NPR has 7 questions of their 8 for the debates which apply to today's debate:

Will Biden stand up to the scrutiny?
Is the debate an opportunity or danger zone for Bernie Sanders?
Can Harris and Buttigieg stand out?
Do the pragmatists or progressives win out?
How much of a focus is Trump?
How will foreign policy factor in?
Who will stick in voters' minds?

other pre-debate analysis pieces that may be pertinent to you:

• NBC News: On Night Two, all eyes — and jabs — will be on Biden
• Vox: What to expect at the first Democratic presidential debate
• the Guardian: Democrats prepare for first showdown as 2020 debates loom
• from POLITICO: Inside the top matchups in the 2020 Democratic debates

I am working on an app called Percent Done that is a combination of goal setting, time tracking and habit tracking.

I like setting time-based goals for myself every day, such as “write for an hour” or “work on Percent Done for four hours.”

I also like Seinfeld’s “don’t break the chain” method. For example, Apple Watch shows you how many days you have completed your exercise circle and tells you that you have been keeping at it for x days.

Percent Done is a marriage of these two concepts. It allows you to set goals and track the time you spend on them, as well as how many days in a row you have consistently completed them. For example, you can add a goal that says “write for an hour every day,” and Percent Done will notify you every day to write for an hour. You will be able to tap on this goal and Percent Done will start counting back from one hour. You will also be able to see how many days in a row you have written for an hour.

Here is a demo GIF.

You can also add one-time goals to Percent Done with or without time tracking, so it is a task management tool as well.

You can play with the design prototype here: Percent Done design prototype

I would really love to get your feedback on this. If you are interested in being a beta tester, feel free to reply to this topic or e-mail me at "hi at evrim dot io."

By the way, this is almost completely a self-promotion post. If it is against the rules, I'd be happy to remove this.

welcome to debate #1, night 1. given tildes's small size, i'm not really sure how this will go, so my plan here on paper is to do two threads (one today, one tomorrow) for this set of debates, and then based on how active this set is make a decision on whether or not to consolidate them for the many future debates that will happen. if things go particularly well or poorly tonight though, i might expedite that decision (hence the un-specific title), but we'll see. anyways, here are all the details you'd ever need, and probably then some:

How to Watch:

The debate is being broadcast by NBC News, MSNBC and Telemundo, and will air live across all three networks starting at 9 p.m. ET.
Telemundo will broadcast the debate in Spanish.
The debate will stream online free on NBC News' digital platforms, including NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, the NBC News Mobile App and OTT apps on Roku, Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV, in addition to Telemundo's digital platforms.

livestreams will also be available on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube because the DNC mandated that of its partners for the debates.

here is the youtube link.

The Candidates

Democratic Presidential Debate: See The 20 Candidates Who Will Be Onstage

• Cory Booker (Senator from New Jersey):

Booker is running on an aggressive optimism, promising to bring people together and fight for things like criminal justice overhaul, improved economic opportunity and LGBTQ rights.

• Julián Castro (Former secretary of housing and urban development):

The former Obama administration housing chief is running on hopeful notes. He promises students being saddled with less debt, veterans being respected, people of color being safe and immigrants being welcome.

• Bill de Blasio (Mayor of New York City):

Leading the country’s most populous city, de Blasio is running on putting working people first and is touting his record on minimum wage, sick leave, health care and universal pre-K. And he’s running against President Trump’s immigration and climate policies.

• John Delaney (Former representative from Maryland’s 6th District):

Delaney has campaigned in early states for nearly two years. He takes a pragmatic approach, especially on health care. He has spoken out against “Medicare for All,” a stance that hasn’t sat well with liberal activists.

• Tulsi Gabbard (Representative from Hawaii’s 2nd District):

The military veteran is running on a platform of “peace,” to end foreign wars and use the money to spend in America.

• Jay Inslee (Governor of Washington):

His campaign begins and ends with the threat posed by climate change. He argues that the economy and fighting climate change are not incompatible and that a green economy creates jobs.

• Amy Klobuchar (Senator from Minnesota):

Klobuchar believes in a pragmatism that’s rooted in her senatorial experience and a Midwestern optimism. She believes it’s necessary to reach out to solve problems and bridge divides between rural and urban communities.

• Beto O’Rourke (Former representative from Texas’ 16th District):

Best known for almost beating Ted Cruz, O’Rourke has a “positive, unifying vision.” He wants to fix American democracy with changes to campaign finance and voting, and to end wars, reduce gun violence, address climate change and guarantee women’s health care.

• Tim Ryan (Representative from Ohio’s 13th District):

He’s running on “rebuilding the American Dream,” and that means, in his view, blue-collar jobs, public education and health care.

• Elizabeth Warren (Senator from Massachusetts):

You name it, Warren has a plan for it. She’s not running to create a new system, but she is running on big, structural change, including increased regulation and scrutiny of Wall Street and banking.

The Rules:

Candidates will have 60 seconds to answer questions and 30 seconds to respond to follow-ups. No opening statements, though candidates will have a chance to deliver closing remarks.
Five segments each night separated by four commercial breaks.

The Analysis:

NPR has 5 questions of their 8 for the debates which apply to today's debate:

Does Warren make the most of commanding the stage?
Do the pragmatists or progressives win out?
How much of a focus is Trump?
How will foreign policy factor in?
Who will stick in voters' minds?

other pre-debate analysis pieces that may be pertinent to you:

• NBC: The do-or-die mission for Democrats hitting the stage Wednesday night
• Vox: What to expect at the first Democratic presidential debate
• the Guardian: Democrats prepare for first showdown as 2020 debates loom
• from POLITICO: Inside the top matchups in the 2020 Democratic debates

Posting this as a text post so that nobody has to go to Gab, but the source is here if you really want to. Full post copied below:

An update on "New Gab" and what to expect:

Progress on our new codebase is going well. For those who don't know, our plan is to fork existing open source software, Mastodon, which is based on the ActivityPub social networking protocol.

What does this mean in layman's terms?

• Gab will become an open source project, meaning developers from around the world can contribute the project and help us build.
• Gab will get several new features and PRO benefits, such as video uploading.
• You'll be able to log into and use dozens of existing mobile apps that exist on both App Stores with your Gab account and use Gab through these apps.
• We will be porting over all of your Gab posts, followers, etc to this new codebase.
• Gab will be getting a fresh paint job and be much more "user friendly." (See a mockup below, which isn't final.) Don't worry, it won't look anything like Mastodon (for those of you who know it is,) it will look like Gab.

What does the timeline look like for this going live?

At the moment we are working on building in Gab features that this open source social networking protocol does not currently have. Things like Gab Groups and editing. We are also finalizing a fresh redesign of the Gab interface. Once these two things are done, we will start porting over all existing Gab data. During this time we will invite Gabbers to beta test New Gab and give us feedback. Once Gabbers give us the go ahead we will finalize the transition and push it to Gab.com. All of these steps will occur over the next few weeks.

Why are you doing this?

• Moving Gab to open source brings transparency and additional help from developers in our community from around the world.
• Moving to the ActivityPub protocol as our base allows us to get into mobile App Stores without even having to submit and get approval of our own apps, whether Apple and Google like it or not.
• Ultimately we want to make Gab more user friendly, perform better, and be a product you all love. This will accomplish all of those things.

We are excited to share this with you and will have more information soon.

Thank you

This is a pretty interesting move by Gab. They had been kicked out of app stores, and like the post mentions, this will allow them to just piggyback on existing apps that work with Mastodon instead of needing their own. I saw at least one app dev say that they'd specifically block it from being used on Gab, but they probably won't all do that, and I'm sure they'll probably end up with some options.

People in the fediverse don't seem very happy about this overall, but it's probably also not a big deal. The main dev of Mastodon posted:

So Gab has decided that their own code that they spent $5M of investor money developing is so unsalvageably bad that they're going to use Mastodon's code instead, with the added bonus of leeching off of our apps (with Gab apps being banned from app stores)

This is an early warning to fellow admins to be vigilant and domain-block them on sight, when/if they appear (unconfirmed whether they intend to federate), and to app devs to consider if blocking Gab's domains from their app is necessary.

Remember that Gab is a sinking ship and they're basically grabbing onto Mastodon like a parasite in a desperate attempt to get attention from the "drama" of doing so.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gab-is-in-full-meltdown-and-founder-andrew-torba-blames-the-deep-state

Torba has no self-awareness to see how pathetic it looks that his master race ass is incompetent at making a working website so he has to resort to using software made by a Jew instead.

App devs will block their domains, server admins will block their domains, and that'll be the end of that.

Inspired by discussion here.

Toxic players don't create toxic games. Toxic games create toxic players.

About a year ago, I wrote up a comprehensive report on why Overwatch's community is such a shitshow. Give it a read if you're at all interested in why game communities turn toxic, or if you're curious why Overwatch didn't stick longer as a phenomenon.

(At this point, with Overwatch now past its prime and usurped by other games due in large part to reasons I described there, I'd like to also offer a nice fat 'I told you so' to actiblizz. I didn't want to stop playing...)

The baseline question was this: Overwatch has great representation, an entertaining formula, and good messages. The game is super fun to play on the surface, and offers hundreds of hours of unique new experiences. So why is it so easily considered to have one of the most toxic competitive communities out there?

There's no explanation or reason for why naturally toxic players would gravitate towards the title, stick around, and infect the rest of the community. Nothing about Overwatch would indicate that it was going to somehow filter out the worst of the worst and keep them for itself, and that's because - bumbudaaa! It didn't.

Toxic players didn't infect Overwatch; Overwatch created toxic players.

The same things can be said for basically any other huge competitive game on the market, with CS:GO, LoL, and DOTA2 being the easiest examples. Their communities are all total swamps.

Despite this, there is virtually no game on the market which properly addresses the root cause of community-destroying toxicity: the game itself.

I'd rather not repeat myself because that above link will do a better job of going in-depth and can be applied to a lot of games, but the baseline problem is this: games catch and ban bad apples, but do nothing to stop those bad apples from forming. Failing to realize that parts of an otherwise amazing experience are fundamentally frustrating, the focus and blame is put on the players for reacting (see above thread) in exactly the way the games are designed to make them.

Chief among these issues? Games demand teamwork, cooperation and a community voice, but do nothing to facilitate them. Games that are designed to be fun casually will be frustrating competitively - and vice versa. Toxic communities will not form where every style of play is catered to, which is sometimes balance, but often a fundamental disconnect between what the game was built for, what's actually promised, and what the player's trying to get out of it.

So, I'd rather send the discussion in the other direction, which is why I posted this here. Rather than blame the community, it's time to look for solutions from the actual people responsible.

(To be clear: yes, there are assholes in the world, and yes, they play games. But the idea that the culture has only just now soured to a patch of racism and misogyny is laughable to anyone who grew up playing Xbox Live. It's been blown completely out of proportion by a fundamental discontent with games themselves, like further kindling on a fire, driven mostly by competitive culture.)