What you're describing has never resulted in the popular vote winner losing the electoral college. The popular vote winner has always lost because states allocate delegates as a winner-take-all system.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 117
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 117
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
The real solution is to allocate delegates proportionally to how citizens vote, as is done in Nebraska and a couple other states. This achieves exactly the same purpose as the NPVC but is actually politically tractable.
No state has any incentive to assign its delgates to a person the citizens of the state didn't vote for. You can do what the NPVC does and make it contingent upon everyone playing along, but that requires everyone to play along and is incredibly tenuous. Even if it ever goes into effect, as soon as states allocate delegates to someone who wasn't the most popular candidate in their state they'll pull it, and the whole thing will fall apart.
Every state has incentive to allocate its delegates proportionally. That's exactly what people want. They want that more than winner takes all. It doesn't require a huge chuck of states to buy into it amd it isn't tenuous. But it accomplishes the same goal; if states allocate delegates proportionally to how they vote, then the most popular candidate gets the most delegates. If you're in one of the many states that has winner takes all, advocate to do what the few more democratic states have already adopted and are happy with.
These network transactions cost between 2 to 4 % for merchants, which is a cost passed to consumers by businesses raising prices. That's a fairly large "inflation", and certainly it seems out of line with the effort they out into it. It's anticompetitive practices that keep it in place.
So you use your mouse to click on the start menu button, scroll through the menu and click again on the program? That sounds awful. I click the Windows button and type the program name.
Every state should allocate its delegates proportionally to how its citizens voted. It's the most democratic approach. If just a few (5 to 8 key states) states did this, it would be very unlikely for mismatches between the electoral college and popular vote.
The fact that insurance is provided through employers in the US is strange. Other products are purchased directly. Presumably there's some advantage a sort of collective bargaining, but it doesn't seem to work out that way for this, in part because the employees aren't really part of the bargaining and in many places employees needs are too diverse to reach am agreement that works well for everyone.
Better solutions aren't coming any time soon. You can possibly make some better choices though. Although, not participating in the health insurance is borderline line crazy, dental and vision plans don't make sense for a lot of people. I would pay more for my dental plan than I pay to visit a dentist, including two annual cleanings, periodic x-rays, and infrequent work like cavities - basically the care you need to maintain tooth health. I don't get the dental plan. You can figure out your own out of pocket costs and see if a dental plan works for you. Going to a dentist that is not in an insurance network is the way to go when doing this. Offices in network are required by the insurance company to charge exorbitant fees to out-of-network customers (the dentists don't get the same pay from the insurance company though). So say a normal dentist charges $200 for a cleaning. A dentist in a network would be required to charge $400 or something nuts. If a patient is in network, it will say $400 on the EOB, and that the customer is responsible for $50, making it look like the customer saved $350. The insurance company only gives the dentist $150 though, so the dentist gets $200 anyway, the customer really only saved $150. The insurance company gets a bunch of money in annual fees from the employer.
You can see if it makes sense for you. Not everyone will be in the same situation, and maybe it doesn't eork out. If you have an option for an FSA or something similar, this option is even more attractive, since all those expenses can be paid from untaxed income, whereas the money taken out of your paycheck to cover insurance is after tax I believe.
I'm throwing out a guess, but the force required to stop an object is related to the square of velocity. You'd need to integrate force over the stopping distance to know for sure, but with that squared term going downhill it's almost certainly better to apply even force over a longer time. You're going to speed up otherwise, requiring more total force.
For a flat surface, the force is proportional to stopping distance, so the total force is the same regardless of distance, but you need to apply that total force in a smaller time, which for extremely short stoppimg distances surely results in different wear. In that case, it's probably much more complicated and there's some optimal braking distance or optimal braking curve, rather than some simple way to figure it out. I'd say simple advice is that if it's not comfortable for you, that's a good indicator that its causing more wear.
The best thing to do is to anticipate when you'll need to stop, and stop accelarating. Then you'll need far less force to brake. Every day I see people speed up to a light that just turned red, so there's no chance it will be green when they get there. Then they brake and wait 3 minutes. Just let off the gas as soon as you can tell you'll be waiting at the light. Of course be aware of people turning or whatever, but mostly there's no reason to quickly arrive at a light you're sure you'll be sitting at.
There are a lot of things that try to replace FancyZones but I don't know that any do well. There are gTiles and Linux PowerToys if you haven't seem those already. I've never searched for alternatives to VS or Teams.
I don't know about games. Steam stuff is supposed to work but it's something I do much anymore. I was referring more to casual use, Web browsing, streaming, emails. Ironically Linux now seems more suited than Windows to people who use computers for simple stuff.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
It seemed odd to me that a Web site could write to or read from the clipboard without the user approving it. That would be a pretty obvious security and privacy issue. From what I gather, on Chrome sites can write to the clipboard without approval, but they need approval to read.
On Firefox and others any access requires permission. Thus this exploit seems limited to Chrome users.@SkaveRat pointed out that it doesn't require permission, only interaction. So likely there's a button that's clicked that writes to the clipboard, and most browsers are susceptible to this.
I had an old computer and Linux is all that I installed. Not everyone is going to have an extra computer to do that with. However, this computer is more than 10 years old. It was quite good at the time, but it's junk compared to modern ones. Yet, it is more responsive than my very nice modern laptop that's running Windows 10. It's not going to beat a new computer in a race to solve a computational model, but for streaming, browsing, and day-to-day stuff, the lack of bloat means things open quickly and UI elements respond immediately. There is probably a fair number of people with computers they think are useless that would actually work very well with Linux.
I can't imagine wasting my time and energy caring about things that don't affect me. Good luck with that buddy.
There's always some post in here saying for people to use Linux. I find an admonishment to be pretty hollow, so I'll share my recent experience installing a Linux distribution rather than simply saying it's something people should do.
I installed one of the many Debian variants. Getting the installation media is certainly going to be a challenge for casual users. Otherwise, it was easy. It walked through the steps. It was different from installing windows, but I felt it was no more difficult. I am well versed in this stuff, but I feel like nothing in the installation process would be a problem for a casual computer user.
It offered several desktops programs at the login screen. This could likely throw off a lot of people. However, if you just logged in and ignored that you might never even know there were different options. The default was KDE. Everything worked. Nothing needed to be tweaked. This is in starck contrast to Windows, where once you get past installation, you need to get rid of a ton of crap it throws at you. The Windows 10 start menu is an unbelievable collection of weird boxes and shit and the task bar is similarly full of junk. The KDE start menu is just a menu. The task bar has your tasks. There's nothing to do.
I did try Cinnamon too. I prefer the simplicity. I don't think casual users are going to care.
Overall, I think for casual users, it's actually easier to set up and use than Windows. Getting installation media prepared is not something most people are going to readily do, but I think it's the same with Windows. They have the advantage there of having manufacturors install it. Otherwise, whatever issues there have been installing Linux distributions in the past aren't there now. Conversely, installing and especially the configuration after installation is much harder on Windows than it used to be. If you're slightly tech savvy, give Linux a try.
What's with the wording used in this article, fake, imitation? They look like the original games. If someone copied a book and sold it, violating copyright laws, you wouldn't call it a fake book.
What an embarassingly obsequious viewpoint.
Ubuntu benefited from an open community for years, and when it came time to create a solution for a problem, they chose to develop something and not share it with community that helped them get where they are now. That's a straight up asshole move.
I'm pretty sure you meant this as a joke, and I laughed at the thought of someone making something as stupid as an app for a soldering iron. But then I thought I'd check. Ugh.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=dev.eduardom.ironos_companion
The OP article said the same thing, and like this article, it provides no evidence for the statement. I looked for some numbers, and for world bests, men had better performance in every category I found. The study linked below looked at speeds over decades and in every case men had better performance. Both men and women have improved over time, and as a percentage the difference is getting smaller, but in absolute difference it appears the same. It is an admittedly brief search, but I can't find evidence in the form of measured times (not conjecture about estrogen) indicating at all that women perform better in ultra marathons. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870311
It's those who are severely obese. 40% are obese and 75% are overweight.