• 0 Posts
  • 206 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle


  • candybrie@lemmy.world
    cake
    toScience Memes@mander.xyzPut em up
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    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 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.









  • candybrie@lemmy.world
    cake
    toMemes@lemmy.mlthe debt
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 days ago

    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.


  • candybrie@lemmy.world
    cake
    toMemes@lemmy.mlthe debt
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    23 days ago

    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.


  • candybrie@lemmy.world
    cake
    toNot The Onion@lemmy.world[META] Help!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    27 days ago

    You’re the one who set that as the bar.

    The idea behind this community should be that you think “wait, really? Is that serious or satire?”

    I don’t think anyone at this point would even do a double take to check “is this from a satire news source?” if they happened to see it shared in a context that makes the source not immediately known (e.g. on lemmy). At this point, The Onion headlines involving Trump tend to veer into total ridiculousness (Trump killing Cohen with a pen, bribing people with pb&j, etc). The only way you can do subtlety involving him is things that are totally out of character, like anything with self awareness or acknowledgement of rigging things in his favor.