![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/h1ChnLuBHr.png)
Most consumers don’t buy their own routers. The only time I’ve helped people buy routers in the last decade is to get one you could install a vpn on. Looking at the wireless standards never crossed our minds.
Most consumers don’t buy their own routers. The only time I’ve helped people buy routers in the last decade is to get one you could install a vpn on. Looking at the wireless standards never crossed our minds.
The problem is “a candidate dem voters want” doesn’t have any obvious choices.
Like Harris isn’t that popular, but the optics of skipping over a black woman when the VP would typically be the heir apparent? You think Gavin Newsom would be a good choice? Californians don’t have a lot of good things to say about him right now. I haven’t seen a lot of other names floated.
More like “hand-crafted” or “rustic” for a similar positive vibe.
How science often works is you try to disprove things, and if you can’t, you accept them as likely to be true. So, to show that the thesis is complete and accurate, they’re trying to find places where it’s incomplete or inaccurate. In the defense, your job is to defend against these attempts.
I hate that debunking flat earth is now seen as serious rather than a 5th grade science experiment.
It’s because we can write numbers in many ways. 9900/99 is 100 just as surely as 99.99… is.
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.
Edit: Looking at the referenced election, it looks like he was the most popular among the people who didn’t want the 2 popular candidates. The first round was 8 candidates and a simple ballot. The second round was a runoff election with the 3 most popular candidates and a ranked choice ballot. He won the first round of that. No one had 50%, so instant runoff, but he also won the second round of that.
To avoid that situation, you would have had to change the run-off rules to only allow the 2 top people instead of the 3 top people. But it still was an in person run off that gave you the result you dislike.
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?
And more expensive than flying a good chunk of the time!
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.
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.
They’re just also in anything processed. Everything has an allowable amount of bugs. And it isn’t usually 0. https://www.fda.gov/food/current-good-manufacturing-practices-cgmps-food-and-dietary-supplements/food-defect-levels-handbook
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.
And the kids playing tag are likely not even gen z but gen alpha. No one can even pick on the right generation.