Kethal @ Kethal @lemmy.world

Посты

0

Комментарии

355

Joined

2 yr. ago

Five presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote. Four of those were Republicans: Hayes, Harrison, Bush, Trump. John Quincy Adams was the first, just as the Republican party came into existence, although he wasn't a member. He joined it later.

By "the electoral college" most people seem to mean that each state has influence disproportionate to its population, because every state gets two electors regardless of size. Ignoring that that is independent of the electoral college, disproportionate power isn't where most of the problem arises. The problem is that most states do not allocate their electors proportionally to how their citizens voted. Almost all states give all electors to the majority winner in the state. It's not required to do it that way, and Maine and Nebraska allocate at least some of their electors based on the proportion of the vote.

If states allocated their electors solely based on the proportion of votes in the state, that would achieve what a national popular vote would achieve and more. For example, Trump won despite losing the poplar vote, but if states had instead allocated their electors proportionally to voters within the state, Trump would have lost.

Why do this instead of a national popular vote? First-past-the-post voting systems result in two party systems with a lot of conflict. Ranked choice systems elect representatives that are more agreeable to everyone. A national popular vote entrenches a bad system, making it harder to ever get a rank choice system.

More importantly from a pragmatic standpoint, it's much harder to get a national popular vote implemented. To work, almost all of the states would need to get on board, but there's no individual-level incentive for citizens of a state to agree to it. Why would the majority of citizens of Montana agree to send their electors to the national popular vote winner when it's likely not the person they voted for? How are you going to convince them to join? The majority of people there won't want that, so they won't pass the law.

If states allocate based on proportion, individuals won't be concerned that their votes will ever support a candidate they don't like. It also doesn't matter whether other states hop on board. Maine and Nebraska are proof of this. They changed their allocation schemes without regard for any other state. At the individual level, the choice is easy; no one wants their vote to go toward a candidate they don't like, and the current system AND the national popular vote system both do that. If you think about your own views, are you in a state that the majority of the time the majority of people vote for a candidate you don't like? Wouldn't you rather have your state allocate proportionally? Are you in a place where the majority of the time your state goes the way you do? Are you happy that your neighbors' opinions are suppressed? It's pretty easy to get on board at an individual level, so that makes it easy to pass within a state.

People should give up on national popular vote and focus on getting their state to switch to proportional allocation. If you really want progress, target some key states: Florida, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois.

It's odd that you're saying you shouldn't consider the specific cases where C excels and then narrowing down things to the Web, where languages like php excel. So now you probably have some idea why your experience is so narrow. There's a lot more to programming than the Web, and there's always going to be.

"The software development market evolved from C to very high language languages such as Javascript/Typescript and the majority of stuff developed is done or will be done in those languages thus the CPU architecture becomes irrelevant."

I saw someone else make a similar comment about C. People track these things, and C has been in the top 2 most widely used languages for more than 2 decades. Not knowing this should probably make you wonder why your background has resulted in such a narrow experience.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIOBE_index#

The Web site says $24 for 5 members. Is it different per location? How do you pay less?

They also left out the fact that this was not the first injury nor the first complaint and that McDonald's knew their coffee was inappropriately hot. The majority of damages weren't to because of medical costs, but we're punative as punishment for knowingly serving a dangerous product. It was intended to make them change their practices. That didn't happen though. McDonald's had the amount reduced in appeals and continues to serve coffee that is hotter than almost anyone wants.

"I think there is a certain dignity that we should be maintaining in the Senate" - Susan Collins

" ... she planned to 'wear a bikini' on Tuesday." - also Susan Collins.

It is made by Red Hat, and they went with the hat theme. I used a few distributions, and RedHat was one of the worst. I don't know why it's popular.

Is the overall question here which has more features? It's Vim - syntax highlighting, go to, lots of other things. It's either built in or there's a plug in for everything. Some are a PITA to set up, but I would bet that some things in VS Code are a pain too.

Editing in Vim is so much faster. If you know emacs I'm sure it's similar. Mice are good. Keyboards are good. Constantly switching between the two is terrible.

There's still a big difference between what can collected from an app vs a Web site.

Granted, I didn't read the study, but the question in the title is so silly. Do they think misinformation first appeared online? Why would anyone expect being online more would result in better ability to detect misinformation?

When I was a kid, there was no Internet. All of the misinformation was on TV and product labels. I learned it's misinformation from people explaining it. If you're young, you won't have the experience yet and if you're in a bubble, online or otherwise, you'll never gain the experience.

It's also a lower case k in km.

Local libraries often have TV shows on DVD.

Two brazilian sounds like a lot.

Their definitions are no longer related, but their sizes are still roughly the same relative to each other. I mean that the unit for amount of substance is based on 12 grams of C, instead of 12 kg of C, despite the kilogram being the unit for mass. Some fields used to use that unit and called it a kg-mole, but that notation would be pretty confusing and you would want to have a different name. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)

I think the 2019 redefinition is really neat. They changed the system so that constants are defined instead of measured, in a way that makes estimates more precise. It's worth reading about if you're interested in the stuff.

I see what you mean. That is just as arbitrary as using the Earth's size or any other reference. There's nothing special about a year.

It's already defined that way - from Wikipedia "From 1983 until 2019, the metre was formally defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. After the 2019 redefinition of the SI base units, this definition was rephrased to include the definition of a second in terms of the caesium frequency ΔνCs. "

The mole is defined based on the gram and not the kilogram, even though the kilogram is the coherent unit of mass. I don't have an example, but it probably results in a bit of extra math somewhere. Again, who knows why. Apparently the mole has had conflicting definitions in the past, and one of them was based on the kilogram, so it seems like this would have been easy to do. Again, the gram is involved - maybe the two things are related?

There are no longer any base units as of the 2019 SI redefinition, but prior to that the second was the base unit for time. Hour and minute we're defined based on that. And now even though a second isn't a base unit, hour and minute are still defined based on the second, not the other way around. It's been that way for several decades now. Maybe you're thinking of some no-longer-used system.