domain:themotte.org
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
25m ago
So we're still projecting.
Didn't you just say "The decline should be observable within a few years"? Isn't that projecting to begin with?
voters-eliot-azure
patently unbiased
27m ago
If it's so inconsequential, why not follow the mundane processes of publishing why and how the change was made? That's my main issue with it. It's a canary in the coal mine for poor data integrity, which, taken in conjunction with the rest of the actions of the administration, is a huge red flag. It did not happen in an isolated context. If this was a corporate setting with financial or industrial data, heads would roll - even if the changes affect "very little".
The majority party/coalition draws the first straight line that bisects the population of the state.
See also the shortest-splitline algorithm.
The shortest-splitline algorithm for drawing N congressional districts:
(1) Start with the boundary outline of the state.
(2) Let A = ⌈N/2⌉ and B = ⌊N/2⌋.
(3) Among all possible dividing lines that split the state into two parts with population ratio A:B, choose the shortest.
(4) We now have two hemi-states, each to contain a specified number (namely A and B) of districts. Handle them recursively via the same splitting procedure.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
41m ago
I’m positive that most people whining about this are not even aware of what the changes made will actually do. Reddit especially is the land of *people who freak out without bothering to find out what the changes actually do. Outside looking in, my answer would be “not much.” For the 99% of American veterans and their families using the VA, the gender column is a redundant sex column. Its deletion changes very little. For the 1% who are diagnosed as trans, noting it in the chart is probably trivial and will happen much like other medical history information.
But hatred feels so righteous, especially the pure hatred that comes from having no idea how anything actually affects anything else. It’s a deleted checkbox, and really that’s all that happened.
BurdensomeCount
—Your em dash is showing...
43m ago
Zuck tries to humiliatingly pay his way to relevance with $300M offers to talent at other labs
This is the most blatant and open attempt at IP theft I have ever seen. Even in Quant Finance where everyone is at everyone else's throat all the time things don't get this open and base. Total lack of class from Zuckerberg.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
43m ago
but the bigger flaw would mostly fall for technical reasons due to clouds or nighttime imagery
Synthetic Aperture Radar can do some of these conditions, but isn't exactly equivalent to visible imagery. The technology exists and there are commercial providers operating satellites that acknowledge working with the US government.
magicalkittycat
52m ago
In my experience, the fun thing about many people who overconfidently believe total nonsense are also overconfident that they will be proven right in short order (for current events). You'll see!
If anyone believes that there's gonna be definitive proof either way anytime soon, they're most likely wrong about it. It's been more than five years now without any account activity or additional evidence.
Short of this apparently random Mayalasian guy deciding "I'm done being AFK now for five years" or Maxwell saying "Yep that's my account, I don't know why I'm talking about a random Reddit account of mine to reporters but I am for some reason" we arent gonna get closure.
A lack of perfect closure is not proof a theory is incorrect, tons of stuff don't get perfect closure and are up in the air forever.
For all we know we will never get a definitive answer if OJ was a murderer or not, but thinking he did it is still a solid theory.
voters-eliot-azure
patently unbiased
56m ago
My pet theory was that the easy way to solve gerrymandering would be to embrace its game-like structure, rather than try to regulate it into submission. Everyone's trying to build a system that is "fair", meanwhile games are the best way that humans have found to interact "fairly". The moves of the game:
- The majority party / coalition draw the first straight line that bisects the population of the state. To be mathematically clear: the party must choose two points on the border and a line will be drawn between them, with the requirement that roughly half the population lives in the two sectors created by the line.
- The minority party / coalition then draws a second line that either turns the map into (50% / 25% / 25%) sectors or (25% / 25% / 25% / 25%) sectors. To be mathematically clear: they must also choose two points, with at least one point on the border, but can choose the second point either on the border or on the first line that was drawn by the majority party.
- The parties alternate turns until all sectors have the required proportion of the population. The total number of moves can vary based on whether points are chosen on the border or on an already existing "line". Moves are always required to bisect an existing district, and a bisection can not bring a district below the required proportion of the population.
The obvious con here is that low-polygon districts don't map well to geographical and societal features (rivers, mountains, city limits), but I don't think that we're doing well with our current system anyway.
Also it doesn't work if you have a number of districts that isn't a power of 2.
Any change would require parties to submit to their minority, though, which will never happen - except through the courts maybe.
Anyway, emphatic agreement that FPTP is one of the roots in the tree of evil and Washington would have outlawed it in his Republic if he had foreseen its consequences.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
59m ago
In complete seriousness, when guys complain that it would be so nice to have a body with intrinsic value in others' eyes, why do they not explore the many places where this is already true?
It's a good question!
So, this is something that happens from time to time, straight men going into various types of gay spaces for attention and validation. And I have occasionally heard a few straight men say they wish they were gay, because it seems like it would be easier. But obviously for the majority of straight men, these are hard limits, they would never even think about going there.
My whole post was basically about how the whole "intrinsic value" thing has both good aspects and bad aspects. It's not a panacea (but it's not a uniquely awful tragedy either). So a man who thought that getting lots of free sexual attention would somehow solve his problems would be making the same mistake as the overly-bitter feminist who imagines that men have access to a special level of existential authenticity that she is forbidden.
What breaks the symmetry in your example is the fact that straight women do, actually, find at least some men attractive some of the time. Some of the attention she gets throughout her life will be from creepy undesirables. But some of it will be from men who are genuinely attractive, and who she may be attracted to in turn, and who she may judge to be good romantic partners. Drawbacks, but also benefits; thinking about the whole dynamic over the course of a lifetime, rather than just one night at the club. A straight man getting attention from gay men has a zero percent chance of ever finding any of the potential suitors desirable, which obviously puts a different spin on the experience. It's the difference between "lots of people want something of value from me, and some of them may be able to pay a fair price" and "lots of people want something of value from me, and none of them will be able to pay a fair price".
It depends if you think the typical consumer consider it positive or negative value that lives are ruined by the production of pornography.
More options
Context Copy link