Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)W
Posts
0
Comments
933
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • The allies won WW2. The US alone would have lost.

  • Europe didn't fight Israel's war against Iran for it. Europe was quite happy leaving Iran alone, having the odd awkward diplomatic discussion. Europe was happy buying oil and related good from the gulf states as needed.

    The US need to lose because they shat the bed.

  • It resulted in voters receiving a ballot paper asking them to rank over a dozen candidates and the response to this by voters was quite negative because they felt that the process of intelligently researching and comparing that many candidates was unnecessarily laborious and people found the electoral system confusing.

    I doubt that was really the public speaking. It'll be politically active people who fear the change. People just need it explained to them a couple of times.

    Ranking 12 people is well within most people's grasp when parties are also involved. Most know their preference of paries, so that gives you gross blocking and then if you have particular knowledge of individuals you can apply it. The main thing is to make it clear they are voting for N winners.

    You need to have randomised ballot order though. If somebody is just voting along party lines they will write 1-2-3 down the page for that party. If everyone does this it skews things.

  • That's a separate question.

    STV with a single winner is like holding multiple elections where the biggest loser gets eliminated each round. You can vote for your favourite uncle first, because you'd really like him to win, but because you've put other people at 2, 3 and 4 you still get a say who wins even though your uncle only got 7 votes. Your Single Vote gets Transferred to your next preference when he's eliminated.

    STV with multiple winners is the same but you stop eliminating people when you're down to however many you need.

  • STV with multi-member constituencies.

    • No ranked list of party members that parties can put their best buds at the top of. All candidates are equal, party affiliated or not.
    • Ranked voting system, so people can express their preference with no need for tactical voting.
    • All takes place with a single vote.
    • Members of the public will have a choice of representative when raising concerns with them. Better chance of talking to someone who simpathises with your issue.
    • It's still representation on a local scale.
    • Whilst it's still an approximation to full PR the margin of error compared to FPTP is massively reduced.

    I think it gets discarded because "it's still not PR" but I think the advantages outweigh this.

  • Yeah. It's the "f-bomb" in the message that's disturbing.

    Not the frustrated tantrum anger from a US president. Not the threatened war crimes. Not the framing of the actions to be god's will.

    It's "Oh my,! What a potty mouth!".

  • It's the beginning of reality biting for sure.

    I think the big one will be when companies like openAI and anthropic have to file audited books in order to IPO (which they both want to do).

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Amazing how the countries side over it?

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Are you suggesting we should boil them first?

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Underwater turbines.

  • The fallback argument for the social media ban is that it’s better than nothing. But with results like these, it may be worse than nothing, given it potentially creates new problems. Children will remain online with arguably less supervision and support, new privacy and digital security vulnerabilities seem to have appeared and the worst aspects of social media lay largely unaddressed.

    I wish more people understood this. Changing something can mean you've caused harm unintentionally, even if you haven't identified it yet. Too many people seem to have the thought process "We have to do something! This is something. Let's do this." without ever considering the harm they might do.

  • WHAAAAT?!?! Educating people is better than telling them what to do?

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Well there hydro power, where we just skip the boiling part and have water turn turbines.

  • ...but who taught her to flop off the couch? That sounds like an aunt or uncle.

  • That's just a savings account isn't it?

  • It's a hell of a moment when they can out perform their parents, isn't it?

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • We Brits use Czar as a colloquialism for "person in charge of...".

    So the head of the water regulator might be referred to as the water Czar (and they deserve a similar fate).

  • Should never have been in the browser anyway.