Liz

joined 1 year ago
[–] Liz@midwest.social 5 points 2 days ago

I really hope AI continues to have noticable failures. I have my doubts, but one can hope.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 2 points 3 days ago

Yeah, what is it, 70% energy lost to heat in an ICE?

[–] Liz@midwest.social 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Even if we assume all the electricity is coming from carbon sources (there's no need for any of it to be carbon sources) it's still more efficient because power plants are way better at turning that chemical energy into electricity. Even with the losses in the lines, charging, and in your motors, electric cars are still significantly more efficient on a mile per kg CO2 basis than gas cars. Throw some solar panels on your roof and they become essentially carbonless.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 2 points 4 days ago

I'd happily hang out in a sealed room with a nuclear reactor.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 21 points 4 days ago

We got constitutional carry in Ohio. Just practice shooting the locks off.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 1 points 1 week ago

I think there's a difference between experiencing objectification and being objectified but not knowing.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Nope. I meant for running elections. You need multiple winners in the same election for SPAV to be different from just straight Approval (vote for one or more, most votes wins). With my suggestion of 5 members per district, the candidates all run for legislator of the district, and then 5 winners are chosen using SPAV. Any semi-proportional method will work, but SPAV is arguably the way to go for a whole pile of reasons.

Anyway, so if you're a voter in that district, you will have 5 representatives you can go talk to. With a 2-party system, usually 2 or 3 of them will be from your party. The legislature as a whole would be made up of some number of these districts, each with 5 officials. They all participate in the legislature like normal, there's no difference between the 1st awarded seat or the last.

The reason you do this is because the people in each district will be much much more likely to have at least 1 legislator that actually represents them and their district. The legislature as a whole will also approximate the voting population as a whole in terms of votes per party vs seats per party. It makes it functionally impossible to gerrymander because if you try cracking and packing you'll really just be moving around who wins the last couple seats in any given district, but you'll have a hard time actually changing the overall makeup of the legislature.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 14 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Should have gone with multi-member proportional districts using something like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting so that gerrymandering would be near-impossible. Five members is generally considered the minimum needed to make gerrymandering pointless to even attempt.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 1 points 1 week ago

Should have gone with multi-member proportional districts using something like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting so that gerrymandering would be near-impossible. Five members is generally considered the minimum needed to make gerrymandering pointless to even attempt.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 4 points 1 week ago

Not like anyone else is reading it as satire. If everyone misses the point, that's on the writer.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 26 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm gonna go with failed attempt at satire.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 9 points 1 week ago

Imaginary numbers: proof that mathematicians don't understand branding.

 
view more: next ›