That’s the “battle” talked about in the article.

1880?

Their brains weren’t pure, they were thoroughly pickled in various distilled liquors. Which since most transportation of the day knew its way back home, that was fine.

From what I’ve seen elsewhere, there’s a shit head son who is just as bad as the father, and then the rest of the family who kind of hates both.

They botched it, but also the worst of the damage was where Trump drove his motorcade over it.

The guy who gives the blade a quick 120 grit sharpen with an angle grinder can even dress up like a dentist

It would not have been a simple roof, but yes, it should have been built.

Green spaces and places to relax socially are always a good thing.

Open source is the answer, but the worshipers of Mammon want control so they too can rent seek. Thus the “Sovereign”

The Oregon Democratic party was also likely against it because they’re pushing a system that’s much better. They’re all in on STAR.

Which is over at starvoting.org

Not really, because when RCV breaks, it breaks hard.

As in the person who would otherwise have won being eliminated in the first round of counting, and then the person who is actually elected being the last choice on a bunch of ballots because the ballots had been gutted down the middle.

Also, that 4% was padded out by a lot of elections where the third party was not viable in the first place. As soon as the third party is viable, then RCV just breaks due to the return of the Spoiler Effect.

It’s explained in too much detail here.

https://www.rangevoting.org/Monotone.html

The issue is, Ranked Choice doesn’t actually make that happen.

Ranked Choice is a very old voting system, first written about by The Marquis de Condorcet in 1785.

Condorcet was a mathematician and was sort of interested in electoral politics… Which ended up in him dying in a French prison as a enemy of the Revolution.

Neither here nor there. Anyway Condorcet only had contempt for his version of RCV because not only did it fail to elect the pairwise winner, it could actually be twisted to elect the pairwise loser.

The pairwise winner is someone who can win in a one on one election vs every other candidate. It’s now called the Condorcet winner.

Anyway, RCV was then reinvented in the 1820s as the Single Transferable Vote for use in multiple winner elections, and then a decade or two later the multiple winner part was stripped out to create the version of RCV that Condorcet was not a fan of, nor was the creator of STV.

Then in the 1990s a lobbying group called FairVote started pushing the broken RCV.

And the system has broken in the real world. Burlington Vermont 2009, and the Alaska congressional election of 2022 are both well documented.

The meta-analysis is that RCV tends to break at a rate of about 4% of the time with three candidates, and about 7% with 4.

It gets worse if the candidates are all somewhat viable.

FairVote has to date ignored or actively downplayed these issues.

The good news is that other voting systems exist and actually do break the two party dominance.

Approval is used in STL City elections, and STAR is used by the Democratic party of Oregon.

Score is used in a lot of feedback forms, rate a group of things on a scale, 1-5, 0-100, etc.

I don’t think a two state solution is possible.

If only because the Israelis want to isolate Jewish people from their neighbors.

Prior to the birth of Zionism, the Arab Jews and the Arab Muslims of the area spoke each other’s languages and celebrated each other’s holidays. The Arab Christians got in on it as well. All of them were also united in their hatred of the Ottomans.

Then the European Jews started buying up land and making little exclusive communities. They refused to integrate and eventually started fighting their neighbors, Jewish and Muslim alike. Things got worse from there.

So yeah, cutting more than 100 years of history short, now we need a full de-nazifacation and a forced integration of the European Jews into the local Arab culture. With equal rights for all.

A bunch of Trump appointed judges have ruled against him.

I’d put them as more lawful evil, and less likely to be fans of Trump’s chaotic evil.

I mean, it’s a known process.

There’s a YouTube channel called Thought Emporium.

The guy used to do live streams were he designed custom DNA, and then ordered it from a lab that could produce it.

It was a simple commercial transaction.

Yes and no. Going from a design to production takes remarkably little time these days.

Yes and no. Going from a design to production takes remarkably little time these days.

BBC already filed a motion to oppose Trump’s filing.

Yes, and people should fight back in every way they can, which means that if you are a lawyer, you sue them.

Basically put in resistance at every step. Protests in the streets and lawsuits in the courts, and anything else you can come up with.

No, the added costs have little benefit.

College itself is great. The added costs have not added to the experience.

I’ll say we over expanded college in the wrong way. Turned it into a business. That greatly expanded the costs with little actual benefit.

I started eating asparagus more as a kid when l learned it made your pee smell weird. I especially liked any leftovers the next morning before school.