Unlurker|Replay|About
Cognitive Mercantilism: AI panic resembles fears of early capitalism (contraptions.venkateshrao.com)
•
A nice article by bosses for bosses that tells a nice clean story that goes to great lengths to avoid any confrontations with any part of reality that might make them uncomfortable.
•
Capitalism right now and always has worked as designed a few winners a lot of people in "jobs" that are bordering on being a slave. Just that now they have technology colonialist like the Spanish or brit's or later us did not have. An error is also that colonialism has never stopped. Just because we don't have boats. You can now call it neo colonialism with trade deals from big power full states with big armies forcing smaller countries on there trade deals.
•
goo goo ga ga
•
I’m gonna go eat my banana which was produced by an invisible matter producer that doesn’t require power, and think about what I could be thinking about.
•
Yet another "disgusting ludites" post NOT advocating for the 6 hour work day despite espousing all the arguments in favor a 6 hour work day. Coward.
>AI does the stuff better than us in every category Current AI is never going to do better than us in every category, it can only do better in us in categories where it's possible to generate an infinite amount of verifiable synthetic data (math and programming). AI is still just as bad at sales, marketing, writing and anything involving human subjective appeal as it was a year ago. And it's fundamentally handicapped in being unable to acquire new domain knowledge that doesn't fit in a few hundred thousand tokens of context.
•
> AI is still just as bad at sales, marketing, writing and anything involving human subjective appeal as it was a year ago. All of these have objective metrics (units sold, clicks, likes, etc) and are thus verifiable in principle.
•
> Current AI is never going to do better than us in every category, it can only do better in us in categories where it's possible to generate an infinite amount of verifiable synthetic data (math and programming). Even if this turns out to be true, I don't think it will necessarily matter. So much money was already burned, by so powerful people in incestuous relationship with governments, that I don't think this is an important point anymore.
Hate taking down these articles, but this is a very, very bad take. Rationalists always fall down on human behavior. There is a comforting fairy tale popular among tech optimists: that human history is driven by mental upgrades that trickle down to the masses. The first part of that sentence is absolutely true. The second part has a much darker side that optimists conveniently ignore. 1. Mercantilism is alive and well. Please see Hormuz, Straight of. 2. Mercantilist rent-seeking is alive and well, just at a layer up of abstraction. See Google, Meta, Microsoft. No single player can compete with them. Ones that somehow manage to even threaten get bought. 3. Tech doesn't solve issues broadly: a modern worker with a battery-powered chainsaw has more productive power than an 18th-century frontier settler. Yet we still have homelessness. Riddle me this, techno-optimist. But you'll say, we're overall better off. Of course we are. But the gains have BY AND LARGE gone to the wealthiest individuals and countries. The idea that the dude can eat a variety of incredibly rare food sits on the backs of billions of impoverished people who don't spend time in our air conditioned offices on MacBooks. Great men and discoveries move the world (see Musk, Elon) but their exploits spread wealth HIGHLY unevenly, and big nation states want to steal it in the most mercantile way possible - by forcing and scaling up supply (look at China for cars, steel, and basically any advanced manufacturing right now). One man intelligence will be a boon for people with agency. But it's HIGHLY unlikely to undo the superstructure which captured the rules of mercantilism AND capitalism at the same time.
•
If I'm being very cynical I think people at the AI labs suspect they're going to shrink the market for productive labor but are fine with that since they'll capture a larger share of profits, as perpetual rent-seekers for all intellectual production. They also have this hope that there will imminently be a lot less of us around (they telegraph fear of this outcome, but that feels insincere).
I think this analogy breaks down when considering that the agricultural revolution gave regular people more time to demand new things, but also more time to produce new things, and thus maintained or even increased their economic leverage > My inability to produce food is economically almost irrelevant. What matters is that I can consume it, enjoy it, develop tastes for it, and devote my energies to other things. What the author misses is that what mattered more was that people could now produce more things. People were free from manual labour to perform intellectual labour. But what do people do to produce things when intellectual labour is automated? And with emboddied AI, skilled manual labour too? You need to produce things to be able to reap the fruits of economic progress. Thats what most working people did after the agricultural revolution. What will we produce in a post AI world? And if only the people who own AI will be able to produce things, then why would they give us any power or leverage in the economy?
•
Surely it will also free people up to apply their intelligence (or stupidity) towards other things. It's concerning because there is already way too much 'intelligence' in this society and most of it is used to propagate falsehoods, irrationality and to manipulate others in counter-productive ways. I hope AI educates people and doesn't merely steer them down deeper into their echo-chambers. That said, I also really hope that AI doesn't just bring everyone into alignment and agreement about ideas which aren't true. There are significant threats with both extremes.
•
Well, regarding manual labour. Putting aisde the "is working with AI drying out your brain" discussion... Quite frankly, even fast touch-typists like me will never outpace an LLM write a few obvious functions... Isn't that also more or less the same thing as being freed of manual labour. How much of the thinking/design process your outsource to your LLM is a totally different discussion. See vibe-coding vs "pair" programming. But all that aside, I very much feel like LLMs are pretty much saving me a lot of manual typing.
The analogy between farm work and intelligence work breaks down at their transition continuation, which the author missed, I believe. When the people were were freed from farm labour, due to farm automation, people could find another economic activity which required the other capacity of humans - intelligence. The transition from muscle-power work to mind-work was meaningful, as both muscle and mind were attributes of humans, creating demand for humans having mind power instead of muscle power. But the continuation of that transition breaks down. Muscle power -> Mind power -> ??? Those 3 questions marks at the end are what's scaring people, and what is threatening the stability of the transition from mind work. If both muscle power and mond power are not things of value, how would the humanity progress to create value? Who buys it? Why do they buy it? Who hires whom? Why?
•
Will power seems to have become the new differentiator.
•
For many here the answer seems to be that everyone will be product manager or a capitalist (one suspects the people saying this are product managers and capitalists).
The british flag on the boat, as if britain would play any role in current times.
•
Britain as one of the most aggressive nations ever roaming this world actually fits since this is also where Manchester capitalism was born.
That’s not really what it’s saying. The analogy it draws is between subsistence farmers and subsistence thinkers aka white collar workers/paper pushers etc. The argument would be that repetitive, brainless thinking will no longer be required (not thinking in general), so people will be freed up for currently unimaginable cognitive pursuits.
•
> The argument would be that repetitive, brainless thinking will no longer be required (not thinking in general), so people will be freed up for currently unimaginable cognitive pursuits. That's a facile, superficial "argument" that is currently being made by everyone who is pro-AI when confronted with any claim of AI pushing humans out of the economy. At this point in time, it's reasonable to dismiss the argument rather than engaging it, because each time this argument is made the proponent of the argument is completely mute on the fact that humans work to eat. That's a big underlying counterargument, and no one making the argument is engaging with the counter-argument, they are instead setting up strawman counter-arguments.
IBM CEO says open weight models are now good and cheap on-prem (theregister.com)
My local model never says no. I never get banned. If I want to do security stuff, reverse engine, there it goes! Do I wanna chat about politics? No problem! Do I want it to analyze medical stuff? I don't get to hear that it's not a doctor and I should call 911. Do I want to explore legal docs, no problem! There are lots of things that cloud models will say no to! I read that don't even agree to help with advanced biology and chemistry topic much. I also never run out of tokens, no 5 hr limit. I can run it 24/7. I don't run out of tokens. I can run 16 sub agents at the same time, non stop! 1-4 billion tokens a month? No problem. Any agent harness I want! No restrictions. Privacy all day. My own true system prompt, not something someone has determined, no filters. Furthermore, there are many open weight cloud models that don't have equivalent online. For a while before cloud models got good at math, the best model at math was DeepSeekv2 Math and there was no API. The only way to use it was to run local. All sorts of audio models, image/video models, etc. No multiple subscription needed. Private UI for my family, kids included (I can guard what kids infer). Got a friend that really needs some tokens? I give em access through private VPN. Telling someone that they are paying for decades of Claude for local AI is like telling someone they are paying for decades of public transport when they buy a car. Sure, you are right, but ...
•
Also no political censorship, and it doesn’t report you to the police when it suspects you did something illegal. That really happened, by the way. Now I want a local LLM server :( $25k is just so much money.
•
> My local model never says no. I never get banned. So much this. Plus everything else you mentioned. The freedom and control is real.
LLM subscriptions are heavily subsidized. I’d be surprised if Claude 20x costed the same after a decade.
•
The inference is profitable. It’s the training which is really expensive and not being reflected in the subscription prices.
•
Doesn't deepseek make $38 per GPU-hour? As in they can actually serve profitably?
•
Inference prices are going only down. It could be that some top subscription costs more in a decade, but I fully believe a full array of competent models will be extremely cheap.
iPhone Duo Teardown (ifixit.com)
Nearly 10 years in to foldables, and they still bring so many caveats. They are consistently worse for size, weight, shape, cameras, battery, robustness, and longevity. I don't think I'd ever recommend one. On the other hand, the advantages are... an iPad like experience sometimes? Or a smaller phone for the flip form factor? The flip form factor certainly does not pay off. I'm honestly not sure who the trade-offs pay off for.
•
>Nearly 10 years in to foldables, and they still bring so many caveats. They are consistently worse for size, And that is why Apple is only shipping theirs now, it is getter better and finally have a decent trajectory in the next 3-5 years to overcome most of those issues. I mean you can pretty much look at State of the Art from Chinese Android phones to see where we are heading in terms of hardware. They are now to the point USB-C port is the limit of how thin they could make their phone.
48 months financing is two years. If you upgrade your phone less often than every year, what’s absurd about that?
•
Getting into debt for a depreciating asset is not really very sensible
I think it's a great comparison, you don't buy an expensive folding phone if you just need a smartphone, it's a luxury good just like a PS5.
•
I have a friend who is not at all into luxury stuff but bought one because he never used a computer and was appealed by the screen size to make the administrative stuff he was struggling to do with a regular smartphone. Having said that he is also known to make some bad purchasing decision and living in constant debt.
Apple sold ~250m of those ~1.65bn, so if you work on it being Android only, then foldables are ~1.4% instead of ~1.1%. For the foldable market to triple in size, Apple would need to sell 40m this year, which if we assume a flat year for overall numbers (likely given rising costs this cycle and the trend of flattening sales anyway), then it would mean the fold taking 16% of all iPhone sales. For a ~2500-3200 USD phone (base model, international pricing), that's not happening. Why would you think foldables are about to get a lot better? They have improved over the last 10 years, but the original caveats are pretty much all still there, and the iPhone Duo doesn't appear to improve on any of them in any meaningful way.
•
>For a ~2500-3200 USD phone (base model, international pricing), that's not happening. Honestly I have no idea. To me spending 800usd for a phone is already completely crazy yet apparently smartphones in the 1000 to 1400 range are plenty already. What is the ceiling at which volume will go down drastically? I honestly don't know. Same for transportation, I don't understand why people accept paying north of 35kusd on a vehicle and that is before the additional yearly expenses. Yet there are plenty of cars sold in the 50k and above. I bought mine second hand for 6.5kusd and even if it died tomorrow after 2 years of use it would still have been a better deal than leasing even the smallest and cheapest new cars on the market for 4 years. Yet I still see plenty of brand new cars in the street every day (and I am thanskful of that, otherwise the second hand market would disappear) so plenty of people are willing to buy really expensive stuff whenever much cheaper alternatives exist.
Lula wins election after final votes tallied (reuters.com)
•
The real lesson that the USA should be taking from these elections, is that any non-3rd world country with more than 1 party (not looking at you China) can count next to 100% of the votes in a matter of hours.
•
So, how long until Trump decides that he dislikes Lula and removes him by force?
Importantly president Lula has vowed to regulate internet and social media around elections "within 100 days".
•
Sounds like a good idea considering facebool and twitter behavior
Interesting how pro-democracy wave after wave strike the shore as Russia's resources dwindle. Perhaps Russia is/was the only thing still keeping those monsters up?
•
It is not even Russia in this case. Just look what Meta and Trump and friends have been doing
•
No not the only one. Musk, Thiel, Vance are also working hard and spending tons of money on that.
Flavio promised to pardon his father, so the other effect of this is that Bolsonaro stays in jail. Although by jail I mean house arrest, which is something that rich, powerful people manage to get somehow and is barely a punishment.
•
There are two other efforts to release him early. Via the courts and via the Brazilian legislator.
* Lula did something unusual, which is win in the second round after trailing in the first. This is a first in Brazilian politics, so simple pattern matchers are surprised. * Turnout. Made all the difference.
•
There were 10 presidential elections in Brazil after the post-1988 constitutional system, with 2 of those decided in the first round. 8 is a really small sample to consider it as unusual, plus the reversal was not that huge 1.8%
•
I'm not surprised. If you have one terrible candidate, in the first round you can vote for whomever you like. In the second round, however, you need to ensure they lose, so you vote for the opposite party, whomever they might be.
•
France here might disagree. If you have an overly scattered left wing by voting whomever in the first round... you end up with a macron flavored moron as the sole non far-right option in the second round and have to deal with this shit for the next five years.
> There don't seem to be any serious questions that the process was fair and that the Supreme Court was impartial This is the supreme court that in 2019 launched a perpetual "fake news" inquisition where they are themselves the victims, investigators, prosecutors, judges and executioners of wildcard crimes against themselves with a jurisdiction covering the entire territory of Brazil. Saying that Bolsonaro was convicted by this court carries less weight to me than saying he was banned by dang. The whole point of electing a right wing senate and Bolsonaro's son was to impeach and hold accountable the judges of this court. Obviously, that's never going to happen now. Lula will put four additional judges in there, and will rule uncontested until the day that he dies. It's the Venezuela model.
•
That's right, it's the Venezuela model. It's also the Hungary model, the US model, the South Korea model, the Peru model, the Mongolia model, to name a few. All in recent years have had constitutional crises as a result of conflicts between a popularly elected president and a popularly elected legislative.
•
Can you show me an example of a US president raising taxes, getting blocked by congress or something, and then asking the supreme court to force the taxes to be raised?
dang is usually fair. Do you have counterexamples?
•
I didn't mean to imply dang wasn't fair. I was trying to say the court cannot be trusted.
Thank you, interesting reading.
•
People other than me have been writing about the Brazilian supreme court right here on HN for years. Examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423 I also tend to comment on the matter extensively whenever it's brought up. Here's my recollection of the events that happened before, during and after the 2022 election: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44619572 I think the abuses of the supreme court are well established.
> How do "they" "have" the supreme court By the end of the next four years, Lula will finish his term with 70% of the seats of the supreme court being filled directly by his party. They also stacked the lesser courts with judges which support him. Including the electoral court. We had judges who openly declared their vote for him judging his electoral complaints this entire month. Any guess which way the judges leaned? Did you know one of the supreme court judges used to be Lula's own lawyer? > and why does that mean that they're popular and win elections? The supreme court literally engaged in unconstitutional censorship in order to get him elected in 2022. Judges also constantly barred Bolsonaro from doing things in 2022 that Lula was allowed to do this month, like lowering taxes at the gas pump before the election. The supreme court was so incredibly politically active in 2022, it destabilized the country and led directly to the January 8th nonsense where people asked the military to enact a coup. There's a saying here: "judges = gods". Actual lawyer told me that. And Lula owns the judges. If you don't see how having literal judge-god-kings on your side can tilt elections, then I don't know what I can possibly say to convince you. Here's an example from the last four years: Lula implemented a tax on financial operations, our elected congress blocked it, then he went to the supreme court and they rammed it down our throats. Yes, the supreme court raised taxes. Not a single person voted for those judges, by the way. This is the Venezuela governance model. The whole point of electing the right wing was to make those gods bleed. I'm going to go ahead and deflate my expectations now.
•
> Here's an example from the last four years: Lula implemented a tax on financial operations, our elected congress blocked it, then he went to the supreme court and they rammed it down our throats. Yes, the supreme court raised taxes. Not a single person voted for those judges, by the way. This is the Venezuela governance model. Do you have a source to read up on this? Surely they're ruling on whether the executive branch has the power to do XYZ, right? So they don't directly endorse a policy, they decide who can do what? You see the same in the US, with the decisions largely going the other way.
Go a few more years back, and it's hard to say the Brazilian right-wing aren't reaping what they sowed wrt. supreme court/judicial branch shenanigans. But that doesn't make you wrong. All presidential republics are like this when push comes to shove. There are two branches of government with equal claim to popular legitimacy, therefore every presidential republic in the world reels from one constitutional crisis to another like a drunken sailor.
•
> Go a few more years back, and it's hard to say the Brazilian right-wing aren't reaping what they sowed wrt. supreme court/judicial branch shenanigans. My exploration of this mess ended at around 2019 which is when the "fake news" inquisition began. It's entirely possible that they were abusing their power for much longer, but I sincerely don't know. Please post details if you do. > But that doesn't make you wrong. Thank you. > All presidential republics are like this when push comes to shove. My impression is this is a Latin American phenomenon. It's how Maduro governed Venezuela, for example. It's the reason why Bukele had to depose the judiciary in El Salvador. I simply have never heard of or read about anything similar ever happening in the US or Europe. Would appreciate counterpoints.
I'm not sure why letting more people vote is bad? Unless you're relying on suppressing the capacity of certain parts of your population to vote to win an election, like my country's right wing government has done, because last minute enrollment voters tend to not vote for them. https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/news/electoral-law-changes/
•
The problem is the bias of the court. When Bolsonaro asked for one in 2022, it was denied. "Everybody had the opportunity to vote". When Bolsonaro asked for one yesterday due to heavy rain in the south, they didn't grant it either. They granted it immediately when Lula asked it though, and the person who did so was Lula's former lawyer. It's clear that there is no fairness to be found in the Brazilian institutions tasked with running fair elections.
•
That’s making quite a mental leap. What’s wrong is changing the rules halfway during a voting day, specially in one of the largest countries in the world with uneven logistics. Polls were closed in some places, voting boxes sealed, and had to be reopened. While not necessarily bad, it can create fraud suspicions. Just arrange a longer voting time from the get go. Else it looks you are stalling and boosting turnout out for your side. PS it’s quite common in some countries to put people on buses and make them vote in exchange of money.
Fair point. I guess we can add Russia and tentatively pencil in USofA from 2028 onwards.
•
Russia does have elections, but they are internally meddled with so outsiders don't see much point. Even places known for brutal authoritarian regimes like Israel and Iran have elections. Elections are a great tool for promoting social cohesion even in decidedly undemocratic countries. It's totally illogical, but people like to vote for the winner - and when everyone knows who the winner is going to be that's quite easy. Elections in illiberal countries are like a societal placebo that can ease the mental burden of the voters and give them a sense of participation and belonging without making any actual changes. Letting the controlled opposition vent regularly and then crushing them in a "fair" election keeps their popularity at a manageable level and helps governments gauge public opinion. Democracy is a system rather than a process, and confusing the trappings of democracy (elections) with the system of democracy (self-governance) is something that's been done by with purpose by antidemocratic forces.
That feels like an analysis stuck in 2015.
•
To me it often if feels like South American countries themselves are stuck in an eternal pendulum of electing corrupt left-wing populists after corrupt right-wing populists and swinging back again.
Lula is neither anti-US, nor is he anti-NATO. He is against a single country having hegemony over the globe, against US meddling in Latin American elections (including with trade policy as of late), and against huge defense budgets.
•
Why do Americans accept that their democratic country is actively intervening in other countries elections? It's grotesque. The US security establishment has been allowed to run amoc for decades and they have destroyed the values that made the US country that people admired across the world.
Roosevelt has entered chat.
•
Repeal the 22nd.
The idea that you must fire your most competent employees after ~8 years on the job, in a exceedingly difficult job that requires on-the-job training, is in fact one of the most inane and damaging things to democracy.
•
There is nothing competent about Lula. It’s a populist “corrupticracy”. I really can’t understand how Brazilians (that actually have a multi party system) keep having to choose between two awful candidates.
•
Is Trump and his administration most competent employees? I would rather limit not amount of terms, but the age. Not eligible for any kind of elections if you are 60+, both as candidate and as voter.
Exactly, this prevents personality cults and power hoarding.
•
No, it means that the role of the Swiss president cannot be compared to the cases discussed. It requires a different organization of the state, not just a term or age limit. Wrt to the latter: the Swiss system prefers the elder candidate.
The "left" ignores the vast amount of statistical evidence that differences in outcomes among ethnicities are due to differences in mean IQ scores, and instead assumes there's some big societal conspiracy to suppress black and Hispanic people, and privilege Whites, East Asians, Jews and Indians.
•
Structural rasism is the term you are looking for.
•
Disgusting. You're a great representative of whatever side you're on. What an embarrassment, grow up and join the 21st century.
EV sales are not a great metric to judge musk sentiments, consider the Tesla drivers who put various bumper stickers on Tesla is the only EV company in the US making a good product. People also like the techieness. Foreign manufactures like Hyundai (what I drive, preferred less tech and real buttons) have tariffs and such applied to them. BYD would wreck them all if allowed.
•
>Tesla is the only EV company in the US making a good product. People also like the techieness. Well yes. Those were things in EU too. But those didn't override the fact that he tried to control their elections. The US has some people who swore off Tesla in similar protest, but the overall sentiment didn't seem to impact their bottom line. I personally want to hold out and see if/when the US gives up on tariffing progress. But I have driven a 2008 car for almost 10 years and can't overlook the scenario of needing to replace it one day. And I'm interested in an FEV for my next car. Tesla is completely out of the question, but I really haven't been impressed with most other offerings when I could peer over the border and see what BYD, Xiaomi, and others are doing. Maybe I compromise short term then trade in when the time comes?
•
Check out Hyundais, I drive an Ioniq 6, really nice sedan, 800V architecture, charges in less than 20m on a 350
i don't know why you were downvoted. any turn to the moderation/center seems good news to me. those crazy swings between extremes left or right are just bad. i have never voted for both bolsonaro neither lula and crave for something closer to the center. lula is a little less crazy (compared to bolsonaro), likely not anti-science, preserves the amazon, seems to care about keeping the same constituition and so on, but he heaves his hand when it comes to (mostly populist) spending, like there's no tomorrow. he thinks he is helping the poor, but it is just for short term. so much public debt, in a few years everyone, rich or poor, will have pay the price, with interest. people that likes him usually say they don't like milei, but his incredible debt build up is actually a future-milei magnet. also, after so much terms and "custo brazil" ("Brazilian (Business) Cost Burden"?) still prohibitive, the country never goes up from its terrible positions in making business rankings. one can just not hope he does anything better now after so much terms. his spending is too demand biased.
•
Big issue is that there are no swings between crazy left and crazy right. There is crazy right and significantly more normal left. And if you want the center to win, you need to ackwnowledge that. Anything else helps the more crazy side.
Really unexpected. Polymarket was like 80% Bolsonaro Jr to 20% Lula 7pm, 7:15 it changed to 60% Lula. There were multiple reports in the news websites about it favoring Bolsonaro which itself probably made some people vote for him. I'm quite happy with the result tho. Let's see how the far right opposition will take this loss. I'm already expecting the worse.
•
Polymarket also just had the Serbian election at 71.5% Vučić a few hours before the results came out of him losing
Last week my mom said we didn't have any orange juice. This week she said we have orange juice. Why the change?
•
She must corrupt. Is the door dash driver her ex personal attorney?
> I'm kinda trying to move past left/right labels. And yet, somehow 100% of your posts are repeating debunked Brazilian right wing propaganda. How curious.
•
I have been here for over ten years and have posted over eleven thousand HN comments, only a fraction of which are about politics. If you think I'm some kind of Russian bot account, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Also, "debunked" is debatable. I don't accept your portrayal of extremely complex issues as settled, and I also don't accept "official" explanations of anything. I always try to reach my own conclusions and form my own opinions. I came here to discuss my viewpoints in an attempt to find truth for myself. If you don't want to help with that, then kindly don't reply to me again.
•
Someone else said it far better than me here last year, so I'll just leave it at that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44948769
Bolsonaro's father asked for an extension last election. Don't remember why. Denied, illegal. "Everybody had the opportunity to vote". Bolsonaro's son asked for an extension this election due to heavy rains in the south. As far as I can tell, it was also denied. Lula asks for an extension this election due to busses being grounded because Lula-aligned syndicates slapped Lula insignias on them which is an electoral crime. Lula's former lawyer turned supreme court judge approves it. It is obvious that the Brazilian institutions, and these judges in particular, wanted Lula to win. They were going to be impeached otherwise.
•
Both candidates wanted an extension. Court agreed, they didn't feel everyone had a chance to vote this time. Approved. Legal. This seems hard for you to wrap your head around for some reason.
Personally, I don't consider it a serious crime at all, or even a crime. However, it is an electoral crime to do things like stamp public transport vehicles with a party insignia to "remind" candidates who provides for them. As such, it's not at all surprising that the busses were grounded.
•
Wow, yeah. Someone should totally find the people responsible and let them know how criminal they were. Super top priority. Also it's a good thing people were afforded more time to vote in case their buses weren't running. It would be sad for a Bolsonaro voter to not be counted because some cheeky rapscallion stickered a bus. Thank goodness both candidates sought extension and it was granted.
 Top