WhoresonWells

joined 2 years ago

I usually promote approval for its simplicity and intuitiveness. STAR also seems respectably decent, and a significant improvement over plurality and IRV.

[–] WhoresonWells@lemmy.basedcount.com 6 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I really wish IRV advocates would stop lying about things like:

since voters can feel free to support them without fear of inadvertently helping a candidate they definitely don't want to win.

There is absolutely a spoiler effect in IRV, and it isn't just theoretical -- it happened in one of the elections the article praises as successful.

Any election system works well with only two choices. IRV improves very slightly on plurality and works well with many choices, provided only two of them matter. But as soon as you get three competitive candidates, exactly the thing many election reformers want to see, really counterintuitive things start to happen.

[–] WhoresonWells@lemmy.basedcount.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Seems simpler for the good people of Wisconsin to just vote on a new law that says whatever they think is proper. Obstetric science has advanced somewhat since the time when Ignaz Semmelweis first proposed doctors washing their hands before delivering babies (especially if they'd just come form the cadaver lab), so some of the reasoning behind the 1849 law might be out of date.

Unfortunately, that would require certain politicians to go on record about something that might be used against them if they later ran a national campaign, so better to let the court take the matter out of their hands and (mis-?)interpret an old law in a politically advantageous way.

Verge's editorial standards may discourage printing out the f-word in question, but following the links shows it to be the f-word for homosexual, not the f-word for copulation.

[–] WhoresonWells@lemmy.basedcount.com 88 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Panera should go ahead and put prominent warning labels on it. Call it The lemonade so charged it killed [name of latest victim]. It might double sales of the product.

Are they keeping the loophole where you only have to discuss side effects if you also discuss the intended use?

I've seen an obnoxious trend in pharma ads where you get 25 seconds or so to guess what ailment the actors are concerned about from their demographics and general demeanor, followed by an instruction to "ask your physician if [brand name] is right for you too."

Is Hiller Lake not pink anymore?

Two is the only even prime number, which makes it the oddest prime of them all.

It's generally fine with me if some of our posters are able to sell elsewhere what they share here for free. What I'd ask is that content be presented non-commercially, as if trying to appeal primarily to viewers who aren't potential customers.

I vote for strict enforcement against advertising in titles, post texts, and unsolicited comments. Allowable in user profile.

Corporate communications / public relations

They've largely subverted the occasionally useful profession of journalism. There's a big difference between researching things your audience wants to know, and asking someone with a commercial agenda what they'd like to tell your audience.

[–] WhoresonWells@lemmy.basedcount.com 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Remember: invaluable is a synonym of priceless, but not of worthless.

view more: ‹ prev next ›