chaogomu

The difference between red and blue is often about 5-10 percentage points. But if you're up 5, that means your opponent is down 5. Because it still has to add up to 100.

To turn a state green, that party would have to be up at least 50%.

You see how that's a problem, right?

But while Green is pushing ahead, where do you think those votes are coming from?

If the Greens pick up 5% of the vote, they need to take those votes from someone, and that's most likely the Dems. Now they have 45% of the vote, because percentages still have to add up to 100, the Republicans have 50%, and handily win the election.

For greens to replace, most likely the democrats, would involve the left loosing every election for about a decade or two. Just completely having no voice in government.

You see what parties don't switch like that right? No, the party has to collapse, and then a replacement has to step in.

And in order for a party to collapse, it needs to be a coalition party. Like the Whigs. https://www.history.com/news/whig-party-collapse

Something that is unlikely to happen to a modern party.

Thus the only way for the greens to gain power is to change the voting system. Real voting reform needs either Approval or STAR as the voting system. (there are a few more, like Ranked Robin, but the main point is that it needs to be a cardinal voting system.)

The Green party under Jill Stein mildly supports RCV, a system that deeply flawed and will not actually fix things.

I will say, the voting system that we advocate for is important.

There are three common choices. RCV, Approval, and STAR.

RCV has some momentum, but is just a bad voting system. It's arguably worse than Fist Past the Post, because in a way, it is FPtP. Or rather, it's several FPtP elections in a row, dropping the lowest each time.

Which is where a problem creeps in. See, it's drop lowest, and then never hear from that person again. So if they are the literal second choice of 99% of voters, they're dropped in the first round and never seen again.

This leads to ballots that look like this;

1 - dropped in 4th round 2- dropped in 1st round 3- dropped in 2nd round 4- dropped in 3rd round 5- Guy you kind of hate and only listed because the rules said you had to list 5. He's the one who got your vote.

If you had dropped your first choice, Your second through third might have won.

There's also a version of the above ballot that doesn't have a number 5, in that case your ballot is just thrown out as exhausted. Up to 18% of ballots get thrown out as exhausted. At least that's what the data from California and Maine has said.

Most countries that use IRV (RCV's real name) don't publish any election data, so we use what we've got.

Anyway, Approval and STAR are both immune to shit like the above, because how you rate one candidate has zero bearing on how you rate another. Woo for cardinal voting systems.

You just completely missed the point.

You literally cannot "values vote" your way to a functional First Past the Post voting system.

And trying to get others to join in your misunderstanding of basic reality is actively harmful to your, and their interests.

Maybe that's the problem. You don't want to admit that you're the bad guy...

Maybe someday you'll actually understand then.

Your little party literally cannot win at anything beyond the local level.

Has your third party run for any local positions? No? They only show up in presidential election years?

That tells us they are horrible people who know damn well that they're helping Trump.

The definition is that Tesla is shit.

They're selling a spotty lane assist as Self Driving when it is not.

Other companies are selling actual self-driving cars, (even if those companies are fucking up as well) but Tesla is nowhere near that level of autonomy. All because Musk cheaped out on the sensor package.

Teslas will never be self-driving, because they literally cannot detect the road and obstacles with just their little camera setup.

They should not be allowed to call it self-driving, or autopilot, or anything else that implies that you can take your hands off the steering wheel.

The reason conservatives don't like research is that to truly take advantage of it, you need a strong university system, and a lot of students.

And universities are breeding grounds for leftist ideals.

Education in general moves people to the left, but universities take that to 11. And that's why conservatives hate it.

but you need to supervise it because you are both responsible and because it’s not perfect

Not self-driving then. Words have meanings.

Then it's not "Full self driving". It's at best lane assistance, but I wouldn't trust that either.

Elon needs to shut the fuck up about self driving and maybe issue a full recall, because he's going to get people killed.

That's not exactly how it works.

Most research is based around understanding the universe. Often called Blue Sky research (Why is the sky blue?).

Now that's a very broad category, so you break things down into something more manageable. Like the lifecycle of a specific insect, or the behavior of crowds in shopping centers during holidays.

The point being that you can absolutely tell someone what to research.

Now, you are correct in that you cannot dictate the results of research.

Except that you can, and it's the second type of research.

Goal oriented research, or maybe practical research? starts with a goal or a problem. Like a disease. The goal is a cure or prevention. How you get to that point doesn't matter as long as you do, but in practice the way to meeting that goal is going to be more research centered around understanding the goal or problem.

Now, all that said, pure Blue Sky research has a guaranteed return on investment. NASA estimates that their return is 3-1. 3 dollars back for every dollar of their budget.

All that said, there is no ethical reason to constrain research topics or even to reduce spending on science.

That was mostly England. The Balfour Declaration kicked it all off, and then post WW1 British Colonialism locked it in, even though the people who founded Israel were actively fighting England to do so.

Exactly.

Oliver Cromwell's head was displayed for 30 years on the Tower Bridge. Granted he was already dead before he could participate in the process, so he was dug up, then hanged, drawn, and quartered, and his head was mounted on a spike.

The trick to a long-lasting head on a spike is to dip the head in tar. It slows the decomposition... Although I'm sure there are modern treatments that would work better, maybe freeze dry and then an epoxy under vacuum?