That’s not what a fail-safe is. A fail-safe is just what it says: the device fails into a safe configuration. In this case, someone has to press a button to quench the magnet, which is not really a failure mode of the machine.

A typical fail-safe is something like a solenoid valve. The valve has a default position when no power is given to the solenoid, and you should design your machine so that the default position is safe (whether that be open or closed). The most likely failure mode is a power loss, so the configuration is said to be fail-safe.

1. You have no idea if this was as a bigbox store or a local place

2. Ordinary people are the ones who have to deal with that kind of stupid problem, not the suits in an office park somewhere.

3. That’s not how you fuck over corporations anyhow, you’re just raising the cost of goods for everyone with no upside. You fuck over the corporations by breaking up monopolies, installing Medicare for All, changing way unions work to make them easier to form and run, make worker co-ops more legally exciting, and require all publicly owned companies to pay out at least 1% of their annual gross profit in dividends each year, among other things.

I really hope AI continues to have noticable failures. I have my doubts, but one can hope.

Yeah, what is it, 70% energy lost to heat in an ICE?

Your usage rate is like literally a hundred times that of the stats listed (assuming they’re true). The vast, vast majority of truck owners would be better off with a regular car and renting a truck from Home Depot, Uhaul, or whatever local business does that sort of thing.

Even if we assume all the electricity is coming from carbon sources (there’s no need for any of it to be carbon sources) it’s still more efficient because power plants are way better at turning that chemical energy into electricity. Even with the losses in the lines, charging, and in your motors, electric cars are still significantly more efficient on a mile per kg CO2 basis than gas cars. Throw some solar panels on your roof and they become essentially carbonless.

I’d happily hang out in a sealed room with a nuclear reactor.

We got constitutional carry in Ohio. Just practice shooting the locks off.

I think there’s a difference between experiencing objectification and being objectified but not knowing.

Most people have zero understanding of how programs work. I have slightly more understanding than the average person and I didn’t catch that a crash log would nearly always be a text file.

Nope. I meant for running elections. You need multiple winners in the same election for SPAV to be different from just straight Approval (vote for one or more, most votes wins). With my suggestion of 5 members per district, the candidates all run for legislator of the district, and then 5 winners are chosen using SPAV. Any semi-proportional method will work, but SPAV is arguably the way to go for a whole pile of reasons.

Anyway, so if you’re a voter in that district, you will have 5 representatives you can go talk to. With a 2-party system, usually 2 or 3 of them will be from your party. The legislature as a whole would be made up of some number of these districts, each with 5 officials. They all participate in the legislature like normal, there’s no difference between the 1st awarded seat or the last.

The reason you do this is because the people in each district will be much much more likely to have at least 1 legislator that actually represents them and their district. The legislature as a whole will also approximate the voting population as a whole in terms of votes per party vs seats per party. It makes it functionally impossible to gerrymander because if you try cracking and packing you’ll really just be moving around who wins the last couple seats in any given district, but you’ll have a hard time actually changing the overall makeup of the legislature.

Should have gone with multi-member proportional districts using something like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting so that gerrymandering would be near-impossible. Five members is generally considered the minimum needed to make gerrymandering pointless to even attempt.

Should have gone with multi-member proportional districts using something like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting so that gerrymandering would be near-impossible. Five members is generally considered the minimum needed to make gerrymandering pointless to even attempt.

Not like anyone else is reading it as satire. If everyone misses the point, that’s on the writer.

I’m gonna go with failed attempt at satire.

He should definitely resign from the Senate. I’m not sure if he’s legally allowed to back out of the VP nomination.

I’d have to look at the specific ballots in question. The study I’m thinking of was concerning the NYC mayor election, so it was likely designed by Democrats, but I don’t remember seeing a picture of the actual ballot in the study.

Hells yeah, have at it!

There is evidence that poor voters submit invalid RCV ballots at a higher rate than middle class and rich voters, something that isn’t true under FPTP. It’s impossible to submit an invalid ballot under Approval Voting, so that’s another mark in its favor.

It is incredibly annoying that the worst improvement is the most popular, isn’t it. Do you have the option to put through a referendum in your city/county/state? City referendums are usually accessible enough that you and your friends can commit to getting it done with a little legal help from an established organization like Election Science.