I think we have a different understanding of ranked choice.

In your example, you have 3 candidates, and candidate 3 isn’t very popular. He isn’t many people’s first choice. At the end of round 1, candidate 1 has 45% of the first choice votes, candidate 2 has 46% of the first choice votes, and candidate 3 has 9% of the first choice votes. Candidate 3 is then eliminated and those who voted for him, have their votes go to their second choice candidate. That should leave either candidate 1 or 2 winning. The only way he wins is if he had more first choice votes than one of the other candidates.

If someone who is everyone’s second choice but no one’s first choice wins, that sounds like approval voting or something similar, not ranked choice.

You know the alternate name for ranked choice? Instant runoff.

In your opinion, why does making everyone come out a second time produce better results?

It’s funny that they started with asking for ID and then changed their mind presumably based on how the person picked it up.

No. If you have hair, it needs to be covered. If you don’t cover it, then you ought to shave it. But women shouldn’t shave their heads. So they should wear hats. But if you don’t have hair, you shouldn’t wear a hat.

The thing is, placebos can actually be pretty effective. Hell, they’re effective even if you know they’re a placebo. And the more elaborate and similar to what you think would be involved in curing you, the more effective. So people going to chiropractors might actually be getting real results even if the things they’re doing are junk.

The reason people go to “No relationship with reality” is because many people use the polls to say “will” instead of “favored” or conflate “will” and “favored.” When that’s the standard you are often presented, of course you are going to come to conclusion polling doesn’t have all that much to do with reality. Because it isn’t that predictive. Especially when you’re looking at things where we take this somewhat fuzzy number and turn it into a binary yes or no while the cloud of possibilities comfortably encompasses both outcomes.

So when talking to some making definitive statements about the outcome of an election based on polls, how they are using polls only has a tenuous relationship to reality.

This is a thread where someone made the statement “Trump would win if the election was today.” based on polls. You said yourself, that’s not what polls are for. Take it up with the person who is misusing the poll to make definitive statements like that rather than the person saying you can’t trust the polls for that.

You can do ivf without that. It would just be very costly, very time consuming, and very frustrating. You just make one embryo at a time. Implant it without testing its viability. If it doesn’t take, do it again. One at a time. It’s an absolutely idiotic way to do it. But it is possible.

I’m saying people who don’t play this credit game but otherwise are good financially also think it’s dumb. Not just bad risks.

You’re discounting the people who have always lived within their means and so never took on debt. They also don’t have good credit. They’ve never missed a payment. They’re good for the money. But they don’t have a history showing that because they’ve never needed that.

They said service the debt, not pay off the whole thing. For an analogy, your whole mortgage being less than your annual salary isn’t a requirement; your monthly mortgage payment being a fraction of your monthly salary is.

I’d honestly rather the switching than ending up on standard time year round.

I think it depends on where you are in your timezone if you prefer DST or standard time. But most people seem to not like changing the clock. It just turns into a fight if we should stay on DST or standard time year round.

Of those 62% that indicated they would like to get rid of the practice of changing the clocks entirely, exactly half of them prefer the option of later sunrises and sunsets, as in year-round daylight-saving time, compared with 31% preferring year-round standard time.

https://www.businessinsider.com/daylight-saving-time-polling-shows-americans-utterly-divided-2023-3

If we abolish DST, I think we should tweak some of our timezones. With dst, where I’m at the sun is currently rising before 5. If we kept standard time, it would be up before 4. Sun rise at 3 something and sunset at 7 something is really out of whack with how most people want sun allocated to their day.

Don’t worry. You likely wouldn’t remember even if you were taught. 5280 feet/mile is just not worth the brain space. Neither is 8 pints/gallon. I don’t think you would convert between the two often enough to make it useful information to just know.

And I do have to look up those prefixes for the less used ones. It’s exa then peta or peta then exa and what’s bigger than them? What’s smaller than nano? I don’t remember because it rarely comes up. But I’m in tech, so it’s starting to more.

The power to select the speaker of the house. They really did make a mess of that. Twice.

If everyone stopped eating meat, would there still be slaughter houses in 5 years?

You’re the one who set that as the bar.

The idea behind this community should be that you think “wait, really? Is that serious or satire?”

I don’t think anyone at this point would even do a double take to check “is this from a satire news source?” if they happened to see it shared in a context that makes the source not immediately known (e.g. on lemmy). At this point, The Onion headlines involving Trump tend to veer into total ridiculousness (Trump killing Cohen with a pen, bribing people with pb&j, etc). The only way you can do subtlety involving him is things that are totally out of character, like anything with self awareness or acknowledgement of rigging things in his favor.

Did you really wonder if the first was satire? It is 0% surprising when Trump accuses others of what he does.

The list of exemptions is a mile long at this point: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-541?toc=1

Basically if you’re an office worker who makes more than than 34k/year, you’re probably exempt.