CoggyMcFee

joined 1 year ago
[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

You just fundamentally do not understand statistics and it’s tiresome

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

And here I thought it was not having the needed amount of votes that caused her to lose.

I’m sick of people blaming Hillary‘s campaign for all the horrible shit that ensued afterwards. Candidates campaign because it is in their best interest to do so, but at the end of the day, this is our government. It’s our job as citizens to educate ourselves on the candidates, the voting system, and the stakes of the election. We should be figuring out who best to vote for, whether they are good at campaigning or not.

So, while Hillary might have won with a better campaign, the blame for Trump getting into power firmly rests with the voting public. We knew what kind of person Trump was before he was elected, and we knew there was a vacant Supreme Court seat.

Don’t blame it on the fact that people weren’t manipulated well enough by a giant ad campaign.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It would also probably be a constant battle to keep it in effect anyway, because every state that has entered the compact can always leave. As long as you can shut off the compact by removing one or two states from it, it will be an unstable mess.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

I don’t know what country you are from or how your voting system works. But I will guess that your country has many parties and after the election, a governing coalition is formed.

In the US voting system, similar parties get punished by stealing votes from each other. So, in effect, we have to form our coalitions before the election and choose the single candidate that will stand for all of us. So, you can think of the Democratic Party as the Democratic Coalition, made up of some truly left-wing factions, as well as some not very left-wing or even centrist factions, and so our candidate will be much more watered down than what you’d see in a different system.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Also might cause Trump to publicly obsess over it which certainly doesn’t help him in any way

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Are you aware of what is minimally required in order to pull off this kind of change? There is no outcome to this election that will result in the Democrats having even the faintest possibility of doing this.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don’t know if you realize how condescending it sounds to hear you say you “don’t want to ruin whatever enjoyment she gets out of it” by telling her… what? That you arbitrarily look down on the use of this absolutely grammatical construction?

The thing that bothers me most about stuff like this is that it is effectively some kind of “gotcha” that makes people feel foolish, like their natural, completely grammatical speech has errors, or something they should feel bad about.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

The worst kind of grammar pedant: the one who is passionate about a “rule” that is actually only a style recommendation.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

This is probably a fool’s errand, because it’s all or nothing, making it inherently unstable. If we ever get within striking distance of having enough states to cross the threshold, the law will be fought tooth and nail to prevent passage, and this battle would continue in perpetuity in every remotely purple state that has the NPVIC law in place, trying to get enough overturned to stop it.

Maybe it accomplishes something useful simply by bringing the conversation about reform to the forefront? But as an actual solution I’m completely skeptical, as much as I like the idea.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago

“How do I help my uncle Jack off a horse?”

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

A problem with this question is that the US is such a big and diverse place, that you could have this same question posed to Americans only, asking about their experience visiting other parts of the US.

 

For example, if it says “bear left” versus “turn left”, what process is it using to make that nuanced judgment?

I see two possible ways:

a) It analyzes the map visually and has an algorithm to decide, based on the angle/curve/etc, which way to describe the turn.

b) Every place where two roads meet has metadata keyed in, indicating what type of turn it is in each direction.

I think option (a) is too expensive to be done in real-time by the end-user’s GPS, so most likely if option (a) is used, it’s done periodically on the server side to generate metadata as in option (b). And then perhaps this metadata is hand-checked by a person, and things the analysis gets wrong are overridden by a person, but all of this is just speculation on my part.

This question came up when some turn-by-turn directions incorrectly said to “bear left” at a standard, right angle intersection. I wondered if someone keyed something in wrong or if there is some little blip in the way the map was drawn at the intersection that we wouldn’t visually detect, but threw off the turn-by-turn.

I expected to easily find an article spelling it out, but I haven’t been able to and it’s driving me crazy not knowing for certain!

view more: next ›