|
Albino Squirrel posted:Well, there's really good wine NEAR Adelaide... And Perth, down in Margaret River.
|
# ? Jan 13, 2017 14:02 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 09:36 |
|
Slash posted:And Perth, down in Margaret River. Further compounds my view that Perth's best three features are the Kwinana Freeway, Great Eastern Highway and The Perth International Airport's departure lounge.
|
# ? Jan 14, 2017 03:26 |
|
What about Karnivool? They're from Perth
|
# ? Jan 14, 2017 03:52 |
|
From Perth
|
# ? Jan 14, 2017 04:30 |
|
Perth is a lovely, chill place to raise a family, with beautiful weather, beautiful beaches, and sweet gently caress all else to do. I moved away from there six years ago.
|
# ? Jan 14, 2017 13:04 |
|
(Via Bill Gates)
|
# ? Jan 15, 2017 22:50 |
|
that y axis. Amazing.
|
# ? Jan 15, 2017 23:36 |
|
What's wrong with it? It seems to start at 0 and grow linearly. E: Or did you mean to say lol the x axis? Which would make sense. Though I don't think Bill Gates has an agenda to conceal the growth of emissions.
|
# ? Jan 15, 2017 23:39 |
|
I assume they meant x axis
|
# ? Jan 15, 2017 23:40 |
|
It makes sense to have a logarithmic scale towards the past in your x axis, especially when you're trying to emphasize how extreme the last century/decade/years have been.
|
# ? Jan 16, 2017 00:13 |
|
Ehhh, it's actually kind of misleading because it looks at a glance like emissions haven't increased for a while when really the rate of increase has just slowed down. It's still going up which is still very bad.
|
# ? Jan 16, 2017 00:20 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It makes sense to have a logarithmic scale towards the past in your x axis, especially when you're trying to emphasize how extreme the last century/decade/years have been. It's not logarithmic or anything, it's just arbitrary.
|
# ? Jan 16, 2017 00:24 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Ehhh, it's actually kind of misleading because it looks at a glance like emissions haven't increased for a while when really the rate of increase has just slowed down. It's still going up which is still very bad. Fair point. steinrokkan posted:It's not logarithmic or anything, it's just arbitrary. It's piecewise linear, actually; 20 years between ticks from 1870 to an absent 2010, then 1 year between ticks. But yeah, it's bad.
|
# ? Jan 16, 2017 00:27 |
|
steinrokkan posted:What's wrong with it? It seems to start at 0 and grow linearly. Jaramin posted:I assume they meant x axis Yes. Posting while tired is always a dangerous game.
|
# ? Jan 16, 2017 00:53 |
|
That x-axis would make total sense in a game of Civilization
|
# ? Jan 16, 2017 03:59 |
|
|
# ? Jan 17, 2017 06:09 |
|
Does VEP count registered voters or just 18+ citizens without felonies?
|
# ? Jan 17, 2017 07:27 |
|
Maxwells Demon posted:Does VEP count registered voters or just 18+ citizens without felonies? The latter.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2017 07:29 |
|
That's wonderful. They should totally do that and force the parties to keep coming back with new candidates until one of them beats 'none of the above.'
|
# ? Jan 17, 2017 17:15 |
|
Same here. Ages ago, I listened to a spoken word of Jello Biafra and he brought it up and I've thought it was a good idea ever since. Megillah Gorilla has a new favorite as of 17:32 on Jan 17, 2017 |
# ? Jan 17, 2017 17:29 |
|
Honestly it sounds like the negative vote, a nice idea in theory that has the potential to be a disaster in practice (kinda like the electoral college!). What happens if the population never gives a majority to anyone? Does the country just go un-run until then?
|
# ? Jan 17, 2017 18:16 |
|
Antti posted:Honestly it sounds like the negative vote, a nice idea in theory that has the potential to be a disaster in practice (kinda like the electoral college!). What happens if the population never gives a majority to anyone? Does the country just go un-run until then? Worked for Belgium I have no idea if it actually worked or if that's what happened to Belgium
|
# ? Jan 17, 2017 18:22 |
|
It probably actually would 'work' because, much like in Belgium, a lot of the power in the US is delegated to the federal entities and below. Could be a problem for foreign policy, though.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2017 18:28 |
|
Mandatory voting would eliminate that issue and seems to work in other counties. But the USA is different because reasons and it would never work. Preferential voting would be better. If your first choice isn't in the top two your vote goes to your next pick. Going down the line until there's just two candidates splitting every vote. That way you're not 'wasting your vote' by voting for Gary. Also people would be more likely to vote for their third party pick which could keep the two parties worried.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2017 18:30 |
|
If I remember correctly, the only two developed countries that have mandatory voting are Belgium and Australia, and it doesn't seem to have led to radically different political patterns. e: I looked it up and I guess Greece has it too, which I didn't know. Phlegmish has a new favorite as of 20:56 on Jan 17, 2017 |
# ? Jan 17, 2017 20:54 |
|
Instant runoff elections (if there are 5 candidates and none gets a majority, the guy with the least number of votes gets ejected and everyone votes again for the 4 remaining), Borda counting (If there are 5 candidates, everyone casts 5 votes for their top candidate, 4 votes for their second-favorite, and so on, guy with the most votes wins), Condorcet voting (everyone lists all candidates in order of preference, the candidate that would win by a majority against all other candidates in theoretical head-to-head matchups wins) are all neat ideas, but Arrow's Theorem (simplifying here) shows that all of them can be gamed in various situations and lead to facially absurd results. We'd just wind up with *different* facially absurd results. I just really like the idea of the electorate collectively saying "Nah, gently caress you guys, come back to us with someone better."
|
# ? Jan 17, 2017 22:41 |
|
Phanatic posted:
Yeah. This is actually a very important result that should be recognized.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2017 22:56 |
|
Phanatic posted:Instant runoff elections (if there are 5 candidates and none gets a majority, the guy with the least number of votes gets elected)
|
# ? Jan 17, 2017 22:59 |
|
Arrows theorem applies to all types of elections, even the one we currently have. There's no way to elect the candidate that everyone would most desire; every voting system has an unfortunate trade-off. Anyways, monarchy-for-life. No vote, no arrow theorem voting problem.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2017 23:43 |
|
Phanatic posted:I just really like the idea of the electorate collectively saying "Nah, gently caress you guys, come back to us with someone better." Yeah that'd be pretty fantastic. lifg posted:Arrows theorem applies to all types of elections, even the one we currently have. Technically speaking it doesn't apply to cardinal voting systems (ie. scoring, rather than ranking). But even then there is a wider theorem that describes how basically it must be susceptible to voting strategies. PittTheElder has a new favorite as of 23:56 on Jan 17, 2017 |
# ? Jan 17, 2017 23:52 |
|
lifg posted:Arrows theorem applies to all types of elections, even the one we currently have. There's no way to elect the candidate that everyone would most desire; every voting system has an unfortunate trade-off. Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2017 00:05 |
|
Phanatic posted:Arrow's Theorem (simplifying here) shows that all of them can be gamed in various situations and lead to facially absurd results. We'd just wind up with *different* facially absurd results. Just because no system is perfect doesn't mean that some systems aren't better than others.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2017 03:26 |
|
Ranked voting is bad and range voting is cool & good.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2017 03:31 |
|
Getting rid of FPTP means the BNP get five votes.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2017 03:31 |
|
Condorcet paradoxes are avoided if all votes are cast as per normal, but are then fed into an enormous glowing and pulsating Voting Orb rather than counted.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2017 03:44 |
|
Tiggum posted:Just because no system is perfect doesn't mean that some systems aren't better than others. No argument. gently caress at this point I thinking picking adults at random for presidential terms, no repeats, is better than what we do.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2017 03:45 |
|
Phanatic posted:No argument. gently caress at this point I thinking picking adults at random for presidential terms, no repeats, is better than what we do. I've heard more then one comment t along the lines of 'I'd rather any American citizen between the ages of ~35-60 picked at random than Trump. No take backs'. And at least one of them was cognizant that the average person is a terrible choice for president.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2017 04:24 |
|
Outrail posted:I've heard more then one comment t along the lines of 'I'd rather any American citizen between the ages of ~35-60 picked at random than Trump. Not just Trump.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2017 04:40 |
|
All these theories about voting are assuming that the true heart of the electorate believes in their philosophy, and any evidence contradicting that is merely a problem of the voting system.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2017 05:36 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 09:36 |
|
Phanatic posted:No argument. gently caress at this point I thinking picking adults at random for presidential terms, no repeats, is better than what we do. Outrail posted:I've heard more then one comment t along the lines of 'I'd rather any American citizen between the ages of ~35-60 picked at random than Trump. No take backs'. And at least one of them was cognizant that the average person is a terrible choice for president. Just make it so that the term for this system is a month long. Nobody really does any lasting damage, everyone feels like they have a pretty good chance at their turn. You get to throw a nice big party every month for each inauguration.
|
# ? Jan 18, 2017 05:39 |