So your iphone 7 was DOA and that's your reason for not using an iphone7? Was it used or something, as that's almost unheard of and of all the phones out there the iphone is the easiest to get service on (especially if you live near a major city).
If you build a better mousetrap an adversarial system builds a better mouse in response. Thus I wonder how they can make a detector that continues to detect. The whole idea of a GAN is to generate things that defeat the detector. So what's the strategy to make s detector the generator can't beat?
I agree. To clean up a possible misunderstanding. In Approval voting one can cast multiple "yes" votes. So there isn't an issue with vote splitting. While the individual may chafe a bit because they actually would like to express that they prefer Bernie over Hillary even though they would accept either, it's still a lesser dillemma than being forced to vote for just one. Furthermore in agreggate over many voters, the average of voter biases for bernie relative to hillary will be somewhat restored. So it's not a bad system despite initiall counter-intuition. It's virtue is the simplicity of execution in terms of things like recounts, and paper ballots and avoiding ballots spoiled by mismarking (as ranked preference is wont to do on paper ballots).
I agree that concordet seems to be the best way to resolve ranked preference voting. As for the cycle breaking rules, there are as you note multiple acceptable strategies for this some arguably better than others but I see these as small flourishes on the overall idea of condorcet resolved ranked preference. That would be the big shift. In practice cycles are rare and when they do occur what one can say is that evidently several of the candidates are well qualified (got hefty votes) and the small difference that slightly prefer one candidate to another may well be in the noise of how accurately a voting system can actually measure the people's preferences when there are a mixture of differently information levels or passion in the various voters.
SO yes ranked preference +condorcet == good regardless of the small matter of breaking cycles when they occur.
by the way, in my opinion, instant run off voting is pathologically bad way to handle ranked preference because anytime there are 3 equal strength parties it tends to not elect the centrist party prefered by condorcet.
Practical implemetation downsides for all ranked preference voting are 1) in multi-precinct voting reporting results is complex since you can't actually determine the outcome at the precint. Now in the information age this isn't that big a hassle since you can report the entire ballot card not just the outcome. 2) however that reporting has two downsides. First if it becomes neccessary to do a hand recount of ballots it's logistically hard to do this unaided by a machine. and it also has a mildly higher risk to exposing the secret ballot certain voters might be isolated by their unique ranking patterns (see for example, the articles titled "the trouble with triples". ) 3) on hand marked ballots, there's a frequent potential to spoil a ballot with disallowed oval making patterns in ranked preference 4) on paper ballots the physical size of the ballot grows very large to support the varied columns of ovals, and the ballot may well extend to multiple pages if many races are handled that way. Multi-page ballots have practical implementation challenges that add complexity. In single question ballots or non-multi-precint elections some of those complexity issues go away.
However this overlooks a larger question. What is the the actual social strategy were trying to implement here in the voting system? The challenge of voting splitting can be thought of differently. One way to think about it is, maybe it's a good thing for the compromise the voter must make in a single vote system is done by the voter's own choice rather than pushing that off in a ranking. Setting that philosophical issue aside, the other issue is what good are spoiler candidates. One answer is that spoilers can accomplish a goal of forcing a more viable candidate to co-opt their position. A candidate wins if his issues are embraced by the winner. Sure they's love to win themsleves, but it's still mostly mission accomplished. In a ranked preference voting system you are actually removing the incentive for a leading candidate to adopt the spoiler's core positions. They know that they will get the roll-over votes. Sure they might get a few more first-ranks by adopting an opponents core issues
hmmm... as a voting systems activist I understand both your opponents motivations and also agree with your conclusions. I'd be curious if you have ever written up any of your thoughts on this. I've been mulling voting systems for decades and my views have evolved on it. Range voting is nice if there was an honest way for people to emit some single valued utility but there isn't so it fails. If there were then you can see why they might have a point. Interestingly if you take the opposite view and assume every one will game the system to their own advantage (game theory) then the limit case is where range voting devolves to voting either a 1 or a 0 with no intermediate values. This limit oddly enough is isomorphic to approval voting (or "viking voting") where you just list the candidates for which you wouldn't throw up if they were elected. A very simple, compact and easily implemented system. While every voting system has it's merits and demerits and these depend on the objective, i'd say if pressed, that approval voting is my second favorite voting system mostly by virtue of bomb proof simplicity. But it's not my favorite. and range voting is far down my list. But at least I get why people are infatuated with the canard that it's optimal.
Why not a central database or even a set of distributed database servers that allow a federated query of where the tomato went on it's journey to the table?
Since virtually everything you can do is something you can do in a browser the comparison point ought to be to firefox not an actual operating systems.
CHeomebooks barely have a user experience. Their abilities are so lightweight it's not asking much that it do it well.
Oh sure you could run them unlocked. I've done it. And I have to say the user experience is insanely painful when you switch it to "debug" mode to allow you to install anything other than the blessed browser based apps. I can tell you that the first time you forget to hold control-D down during any reboot and it wipes the disk, it's a probably the worst possible user experience you could imagine.
Try installing something. Anything from a package manager.... oh wait you can't. You get what they have and it's browser style apps. you can't use any of the other ports.
it's locked down.
So it's the perfect device for 75% of the people out there who are better off being prevented from doing stupid shit than being offered versatility. I might be underestimating that market. It's the toaster of of computers. Even android phones can do more. it's like a firestick with a keyboard.
Valley of the Vixens would retain the fox theme while suggesting a wider array of "services". If they want to retain the flaming tail aspect of it the Valley of the Hot Vixens. I'm sure there would be no confusing branding when a google search is done as long as it isn't from work
The goals of that IT workers union are something we all can agree on:
OVERVIEW This document investigates the needs of Information Technology workers and the likely parameters of an IT Workers Union. GOALS 1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit 2. Sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.
Historically the goals of Unions have not always been about pay. the first Trade Unions (beyond mere guilds) in the USA were the Train Worker's union. Their the goals were about quality of life and longevity of careers. Their promise to the bussinesses was that in return they would be able to develop a more professional class of tranin worker and decrease expensive accidents. This actually did work out pretty well. Train workers were scheduled so they would return home every couple weeks rather than having to flop in railroad owned hotel-bars. The bars in the company owned flop houses were closed down. Merit based pay was insituted. And train wrecks did decrease and on-time schedules got better. It was only later that the collective bargaining began to focus on having worker's capture a larger slice of the profits. But even then Unions recognize that growing the pie was as important to wages as the slice of the pie they got. However like all things some weird dynamics set in, in which collective bargaining at Ford would set the wage rate at GM too. All ford cared about was making sure any price rise they incurred was felt by GM too and vica versa. Pass it along to the consumer. So Unions and management became less focused on keeping the company competitive as they could both pass along the costs. They paid dearly when foreign imports ate their lunch. As a results Unions got a bad name.
But the idea that a union can foster career development that benefits an industry as opposed to treating workers as disposable cattle is still valid.
However Millenials dont' seem to subscribe to the idea of career longevity. So Unions aren't going to happen in the IT industry.
I would think that it would be normal for 50% of people to be paid less than the median salary for any given set of identical positions. so 60% of them feeling underpaid yet having the same job description as their peers who are paid more is lcose to what you might expect.
I subscribe to both the NY times and the Wall Street Journal (just don't read the comments section or the editorials). There's plenty of real news in these papers. Support them if you like real news.
Non-paywalled news is going to go for clicks as the profit center so Dopamine news is what one gets there. It's not necessarily fake just not composed with integrity as it's quantity over quality.
Real news just doesn't change fast enough. This is also why news tied to a print publisher has sort of a natural limit of quantity and durability.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a good bussiness model. Better than HBO, more movies on rotations, and released sooner than HBO gets them.
SO basically like Showtime or HBO.
A double dose of the pimpPass. You see a pimp's love for a woman is different than that of a square.
So your iphone 7 was DOA and that's your reason for not using an iphone7? Was it used or something, as that's almost unheard of and of all the phones out there the iphone is the easiest to get service on (especially if you live near a major city).
If you build a better mousetrap an adversarial system builds a better mouse in response. Thus I wonder how they can make a detector that continues to detect. The whole idea of a GAN is to generate things that defeat the detector. So what's the strategy to make s detector the generator can't beat?
I agree. To clean up a possible misunderstanding. In Approval voting one can cast multiple "yes" votes. So there isn't an issue with vote splitting. While the individual may chafe a bit because they actually would like to express that they prefer Bernie over Hillary even though they would accept either, it's still a lesser dillemma than being forced to vote for just one. Furthermore in agreggate over many voters, the average of voter biases for bernie relative to hillary will be somewhat restored. So it's not a bad system despite initiall counter-intuition. It's virtue is the simplicity of execution in terms of things like recounts, and paper ballots and avoiding ballots spoiled by mismarking (as ranked preference is wont to do on paper ballots).
I agree that concordet seems to be the best way to resolve ranked preference voting. As for the cycle breaking rules, there are as you note multiple acceptable strategies for this some arguably better than others but I see these as small flourishes on the overall idea of condorcet resolved ranked preference. That would be the big shift. In practice cycles are rare and when they do occur what one can say is that evidently several of the candidates are well qualified (got hefty votes) and the small difference that slightly prefer one candidate to another may well be in the noise of how accurately a voting system can actually measure the people's preferences when there are a mixture of differently information levels or passion in the various voters.
SO yes ranked preference +condorcet == good regardless of the small matter of breaking cycles when they occur.
by the way, in my opinion, instant run off voting is pathologically bad way to handle ranked preference because anytime there are 3 equal strength parties it tends to not elect the centrist party prefered by condorcet.
Practical implemetation downsides for all ranked preference voting are 1) in multi-precinct voting reporting results is complex since you can't actually determine the outcome at the precint. Now in the information age this isn't that big a hassle since you can report the entire ballot card not just the outcome. 2) however that reporting has two downsides. First if it becomes neccessary to do a hand recount of ballots it's logistically hard to do this unaided by a machine. and it also has a mildly higher risk to exposing the secret ballot certain voters might be isolated by their unique ranking patterns (see for example, the articles titled "the trouble with triples". ) 3) on hand marked ballots, there's a frequent potential to spoil a ballot with disallowed oval making patterns in ranked preference 4) on paper ballots the physical size of the ballot grows very large to support the varied columns of ovals, and the ballot may well extend to multiple pages if many races are handled that way. Multi-page ballots have practical implementation challenges that add complexity.
In single question ballots or non-multi-precint elections some of those complexity issues go away.
However this overlooks a larger question. What is the the actual social strategy were trying to implement here in the voting system? The challenge of voting splitting can be thought of differently. One way to think about it is, maybe it's a good thing for the compromise the voter must make in a single vote system is done by the voter's own choice rather than pushing that off in a ranking. Setting that philosophical issue aside, the other issue is what good are spoiler candidates. One answer is that spoilers can accomplish a goal of forcing a more viable candidate to co-opt their position. A candidate wins if his issues are embraced by the winner. Sure they's love to win themsleves, but it's still mostly mission accomplished. In a ranked preference voting system you are actually removing the incentive for a leading candidate to adopt the spoiler's core positions. They know that they will get the roll-over votes. Sure they might get a few more first-ranks by adopting an opponents core issues
hmmm... as a voting systems activist I understand both your opponents motivations and also agree with your conclusions. I'd be curious if you have ever written up any of your thoughts on this. I've been mulling voting systems for decades and my views have evolved on it. Range voting is nice if there was an honest way for people to emit some single valued utility but there isn't so it fails. If there were then you can see why they might have a point. Interestingly if you take the opposite view and assume every one will game the system to their own advantage (game theory) then the limit case is where range voting devolves to voting either a 1 or a 0 with no intermediate values. This limit oddly enough is isomorphic to approval voting (or "viking voting") where you just list the candidates for which you wouldn't throw up if they were elected. A very simple, compact and easily implemented system. While every voting system has it's merits and demerits and these depend on the objective, i'd say if pressed, that approval voting is my second favorite voting system mostly by virtue of bomb proof simplicity. But it's not my favorite. and range voting is far down my list. But at least I get why people are infatuated with the canard that it's optimal.
Why not a central database or even a set of distributed database servers that allow a federated query of where the tomato went on it's journey to the table?
or maybe It expensives a cheap game
The real easter egg will be the hidden doom module.
If you die in your tesla can you go back to your last saved position?
Reading comprehension issue? Maybe you didn't finish reading what I wrote before you posted?
Since virtually everything you can do is something you can do in a browser the comparison point ought to be to firefox not an actual operating systems.
CHeomebooks barely have a user experience. Their abilities are so lightweight it's not asking much that it do it well.
Oh sure you could run them unlocked. I've done it. And I have to say the user experience is insanely painful when you switch it to "debug" mode to allow you to install anything other than the blessed browser based apps. I can tell you that the first time you forget to hold control-D down during any reboot and it wipes the disk, it's a probably the worst possible user experience you could imagine.
Try installing something. Anything from a package manager.... oh wait you can't. You get what they have and it's browser style apps. you can't use any of the other ports.
it's locked down.
So it's the perfect device for 75% of the people out there who are better off being prevented from doing stupid shit than being offered versatility. I might be underestimating that market. It's the toaster of of computers. Even android phones can do more. it's like a firestick with a keyboard.
It would be great if we could get Betsy DeVos to tweet that.
thanks for the intelligent response.
Valley of the Vixens would retain the fox theme while suggesting a wider array of "services". If they want to retain the flaming tail aspect of it the Valley of the Hot Vixens. I'm sure there would be no confusing branding when a google search is done as long as it isn't from work
Just put the plans for it into an etherium or bitcoin contract and send yourself ten cents.
The goals of that IT workers union are something we all can agree on:
OVERVIEW
This document investigates the needs of Information Technology workers and the likely parameters of an IT Workers Union.
GOALS
1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit
2. Sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.
Historically the goals of Unions have not always been about pay. the first Trade Unions (beyond mere guilds) in the USA were the Train Worker's union. Their the goals were about quality of life and longevity of careers. Their promise to the bussinesses was that in return they would be able to develop a more professional class of tranin worker and decrease expensive accidents. This actually did work out pretty well. Train workers were scheduled so they would return home every couple weeks rather than having to flop in railroad owned hotel-bars. The bars in the company owned flop houses were closed down. Merit based pay was insituted. And train wrecks did decrease and on-time schedules got better. It was only later that the collective bargaining began to focus on having worker's capture a larger slice of the profits. But even then Unions recognize that growing the pie was as important to wages as the slice of the pie they got. However like all things some weird dynamics set in, in which collective bargaining at Ford would set the wage rate at GM too. All ford cared about was making sure any price rise they incurred was felt by GM too and vica versa. Pass it along to the consumer. So Unions and management became less focused on keeping the company competitive as they could both pass along the costs. They paid dearly when foreign imports ate their lunch. As a results Unions got a bad name.
But the idea that a union can foster career development that benefits an industry as opposed to treating workers as disposable cattle is still valid.
However Millenials dont' seem to subscribe to the idea of career longevity. So Unions aren't going to happen in the IT industry.
I would think that it would be normal for 50% of people to be paid less than the median salary for any given set of identical positions. so 60% of them feeling underpaid yet having the same job description as their peers who are paid more is lcose to what you might expect.
I subscribe to both the NY times and the Wall Street Journal (just don't read the comments section or the editorials). There's plenty of real news in these papers. Support them if you like real news.
Non-paywalled news is going to go for clicks as the profit center so Dopamine news is what one gets there. It's not necessarily fake just not composed with integrity as it's quantity over quality.
Real news just doesn't change fast enough. This is also why news tied to a print publisher has sort of a natural limit of quantity and durability.
Yes. Please. make slashdot Trumpless.
I've never read any news story I was an expert on and seen it fully correct. One has to read widely to not be mislead even accidentally.
First, fake news is not crowding out real news. But this article is perhaps an example of fake news. Is it crowding out something?
The development of a human brain from a single cell?
freely tapped labor market. I,e, like free memory -- not in use. Not free as in free beer. I spoke too causally.