Nate said today that a coin actually has a 50.5% chance of heads, so this is technically closer than a coin flip!
I can’t really see how this is different from anything except that it is an online movement. There have always been slogans, campaigns, and movements to get people motivated to vote. This particular movement is helpful to motivate people who might feel that their vote isn’t significant, as it helps them to think of it in concrete terms as a chess move against their MAGA loved one. I don’t see why that is so stupid. It seems like hating it is more of a knee-jerk reaction against people who use TikTok. While I dislike TikTok myself, this seems like one of the weakest examples of why it’s bad.
Yes, they want weeks of no official result being declared, during which they say Trump definitely won, so that when the final result comes in, if it’s Harris, they can say Democrats are trying to overturn the election
But if you don’t get the amount of candy you want in the end (and even with a slow pace my kids have always had more candy than they could ever finish), just buy some more. Who cares about the excess of candy?
If your lonely, go to a bar. I'm trying to run these street with my kids and make some real candy profit.
If you just want a bunch of candy, go to Walmart.
How long was Prince "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince"?
For about seven years, and then he went back to calling himself Prince again.
Permanently Deleted
Yeah, I’m not as addicted to Lemmy as I was with Reddit, because there aren’t as many comments and niche communities and an algorithm messing with me, but like I check Lemmy throughout each day and if I’m honest there’s not much purpose aside from getting that hit.
Not voting in enough Democrats into Congress to do anything and saying the Democrats didn’t actually want to do anything
You just fundamentally do not understand statistics and it’s tiresome
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.
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.
Also might cause Trump to publicly obsess over it which certainly doesn’t help him in any way
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.
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.
The worst kind of grammar pedant: the one who is passionate about a “rule” that is actually only a style recommendation.
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.
“How do I help my uncle Jack off a horse?”
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.
How does my navigation system determine the specific wording it uses about each turn when giving directions?
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 in