skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One important distinction to make is that RCV isn't the same as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV); rather, IRV is a specific (the most commonly championed, as far as I can tell) implementation of RCV, likely because it's the easiest to explain.

Note that all RCV implementations have limitations, per the oft-cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore... which outlines a number of ostensibly desirable attributes then demonstrates that no RCV implementation can satisfy all of them.

But that's not to say that approval voting methods are flawless, either. One often cited desirable property is the Condorcet criterion, namely, if one candidate beats all others in head-to-head matchups, that candidate should be the winner. (There's a related Condorcet Loser criterion which is the inverse: if one candidate loses to all others in head-to-head matchups, that candidate should not be elected.)

Suppose we applied approval voting to a simplified view of the 2016 election. (Y to indicate approval, N to indicate disapproval)

- 48%: Partisan R. Trump (Y) > Stein (N) > Clinton (N)

- 48%: Partisan D. Clinton (Y) > Stein (N) > Trump (N)

- 3%: 3rd-party, very slight D lean. Stein (Y) > Clinton (Y) > Trump (N)

- 1%: 3rd-party, very slight R lean. Stein (Y) > Trump (Y) > Clinton (N)

Stein beats both Clinton and Trump in head-to-head matchups, 52% to 48%. But with an approval voting system (selecting Clinton with 51% approval), this fails the Condorcet criterion! (IRV is no better here, to be clear. And Condorcet methods have their own pathologies.)
Meme Stocks Change Everything
Hah! Is it that bad?

We're financially stable (monthly mortgage is 3 days of earnings for me, have a good $100k in liquid savings and growing +15k/Mo at least), own car outright, have an extra ~$200k in the house, and have a good amount of free time at the moment.

Being mid-30s we're also pretty happy with where our lives are at, don't feel a huge pining to travel anymore, have fancy dinners, get boozed, do drugs etc. We've done all that, and being in various forms of lockdown for a year and a half has shown us that a lot of the things we used to value aren't that important to us anymore.

Are you a parent? How has your life changed? What have you had to give up?
Did you read the comment? He didn't say any such thing! He said the man in the situation is not to be adored.

Maybe you should look into yourself and question what caused you to interpret it that way.
That whole decisioning tree, hungry, depressed, or sleepy. Surprisingly tricky from inside.

Re the tracking too much, there is the old joke about a bicycle odometer that bings whenever you pass a beautiful site so you don’t miss it in your obsession with velocity.
Where can I buy these (banners?) and what's the min daily budget? I'm skeptical this will work long term as you're overlapping two of the worst sources of traffic: technically-inclined users and incentived attention. Would love to test it out for fun.
> in an low-friction, anonymous manner

Ah yes completely anonymous, unless you want to withdraw https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032158891-Wha...
I got married late in life and one of the rude awakenings I learned was the biological clock was very real. We struggled having kids and it was incredibly traumatic for my wife. Long story short. She gave up her career. Struggled financially. We finally got our miracle baby. Being an older parent has its pros and cons. Some say older fathers have a greater risk of passing damaged genes while the mothers’egg is formed at birth? I don’t know. I am not a doctor. Our miracle baby had a medical scare which resulted in us getting an emergency baptism for him before scheduled surgery. In the end we all survived. As an older parent I like to think I am more appreciative of my family.
If you don't like your pictures it's easy enough to hire a professional photographer to take some candid shots with a proper camera and good lighting.
No, it isn't invariable.

Singapore is less corrupt than the Netherlands.

Hong Kong is less corrupt than Austria and Belgium and Estonia.

Japan has less corruption than Poland.

Your claim seems based on cherry picking.
this isn't quite set up the way the article was mentioning. Here's with it set up correctly:

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

It looks like it still misses some of the cases (specifically with decomposed vs precomposed).

As a side note, it looks like the playground editor also doesn't correctly render some of the lengths (the cursor is 1 character off on the decomposed case)
That isn’t the big issue. The big issue is that people think/act like they are always right. That is a close minded attitude that doesn’t lead to learning.

Furthermore people are actually acting tribally. They cancel people on the other side for the same behavior that they are ignoring from people on their side.
>As a result, the existing national unions have repeatedly demonstrated that they’re not interested in improving working conditions for their members.

It always comes down to this. And you can argue endlessly about the various failings of modern organized labor. But ultimately it's all we've got. The capitalists have demonstrated for centuries over and over again that left unchecked they will always take capitalism to a level of borderline subsistence for the working class to maximize profits. Your boss is not looking out for you; ever.

To have an organization with funding and influence that has at least professed to defend your rights gives a more realistic chance of having your voice heard, no matter how slight.
This looks awesome, definitely trying for my future contributions.
Thank you. However, I'm not sure that is correct.

There are several types of professionals who typically diagnose ADHD. These include: physicians (especially psychiatrists, pediatricians, neurologists), psychologists, social workers, nurse practitioners, and other licensed counselors or therapists (e.g. professional counselors, marriage and family therapists, etc.). [1]

Some examples of professionals who are capable of diagnosing ADHD include: pediatricians, psychiatrists, family physicians, nurse practitioners, psychologists, psychotherapists. [2]

[1] https://chadd.org/about-adhd/professionals-who-diagnose-and-...

[2] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/adhd-doctor
...therefore the Bible is infallible...

That is a Christian position, but I don't believe it's the only one, especially outside the US. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility for discussion.
It was very much within the scope of his job duties. Many of his colleagues were encouraged and rewarded for making presentations on the same topic using company resources on company time (with the opposite conclusions).

The idea that you can investigate something and present your good faith effort at the truth, with evidence, and be fired for that, is pretty scary. Like imagine several of your colleagues do comparisons of PostgreSQL and MongoDB on your internal blog, showing some benchmark results; you think that's not the whole picture and do your own comparison showing some other benchmarks. And then you get fired, not because your benchmarks were less rigorous or your writeup was poor, but because they don't like your answers. That's not an environment that's going to lead to good technology choices and an effective company.
If you're a visual thinker, you might enjoy these:

http://zesty.ca/voting/voteline

http://zesty.ca/voting/sim

Or, if you prefer logic:

The intuition for "something strange could happen" is that IRV only uses some of the information on the ballots. Initially it uses just the top ranking on each ballot, and then at other points in the process, it might flip to using the second ranking on some of the ballots, and so on. There are these sudden trigger thresholds that cause big discontinuities in what gets counted—and that should feel weird. We have this pile of ballots that could all count for A or B; why should that decision depend on some unrelated other ballots?

That's the mechanism by which ranking someone higher can cause them to lose. Only some of the second ranks on the ballots will get to count, and depending which ones get counted, we could get a totally different outcome. Suppose A, B, and C are all competitive in an election, with no one having an outright majority, but A has a little more support than B, who has a little more support than C. It could be the case that A is in a winning position because C supporters mostly like A as their second choice; when C gets eliminated first, those ballots count for A and A wins. But let's say B supporters all like C as their second choice, and you persuade some B supporters to switch to A. If enough of them switch away from B that B is eliminated first, then all those B supporters' ballots will count for C, and that can cause C to win. So by campaigning for A, you made A lose!

The general idea is that if B and C are close, which way it tips can have a sweeping effect on whose second choices get counted, which can affect A. It should feel intuitively scary that a small shift in one part of the election can have a magnified effect on a different part. It's not good for systems to be unstable like that.
I was not just referring to seniors. But good to have an authority such as yourself to reassure me that there are plenty of hoops for seniors to jump through to get relief from the govt imposed rent you're comfortable with.
Amazon workers would be immeasurably better off self-unionizing than joining a bloated bureaucracy like the Teamsters. Yikes.
STAR voting does not eliminate strategic voting.

Suppose you are left, and there are three candidate, left, center, right.

Honestly you would rank then as 5, 3, 1. But center candidate is better for you than right. So you are going to vote 5, 5, 1. So STAR voting is effectively an approval voting.
It has to be the microsoft mood bra, right?