I hate that debunking flat earth is now seen as serious rather than a 5th grade science experiment.
It's because we can write numbers in many ways. 9900/99 is 100 just as surely as 99.99... is.
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.
You know the alternate name for ranked choice? Instant runoff.
In your opinion, why does making everyone come out a second time produce better results?
Were you around in March of 2020?
And more expensive than flying a good chunk of the time!
Hong Kong and Macau are weird in that they're part of China but have a different government and separate economic system. They're both former European colonies that were "given" back relatively recently. I don't see the main part of China on the graph, but maybe I just missed it.
It's funny that they started with asking for ID and then changed their mind presumably based on how the person picked it up.
No. If you have hair, it needs to be covered. If you don't cover it, then you ought to shave it. But women shouldn't shave their heads. So they should wear hats. But if you don't have hair, you shouldn't wear a hat.
If you know what the Gettysburg address is about, I'd be absolutely shocked if you didn't know who delivered it.
The thing is, placebos can actually be pretty effective. Hell, they're effective even if you know they're a placebo. And the more elaborate and similar to what you think would be involved in curing you, the more effective. So people going to chiropractors might actually be getting real results even if the things they're doing are junk.
You're missing fear. Which is a really important tool. Possibly the most important one.
But yeah, happiness, fear, anger and sadness are the basic emotions. But that's like red, blue, and yellow were the basic colors you used in elementary school painting. You get different degrees and different blends of them and that's where the complexity comes in. Rage, anger, annoyance? Different degrees of anger. Anticipation? It's some degree of happiness and fear. Grief? Usually some happiness, fear, and a lot of sadness.
Columbine was in '99, so that checks out. I think schools started doing them sometime after that tragedy.
They're the exact same mistake. Since the commenter you were responding to wasn't the one to originally make the mistake, but instead was arguing with someone who's premise relied on that mistake, it's weird to only get on them about it.
The reason people go to "No relationship with reality" is because many people use the polls to say "will" instead of "favored" or conflate "will" and "favored." When that's the standard you are often presented, of course you are going to come to conclusion polling doesn't have all that much to do with reality. Because it isn't that predictive. Especially when you're looking at things where we take this somewhat fuzzy number and turn it into a binary yes or no while the cloud of possibilities comfortably encompasses both outcomes.
So when talking to some making definitive statements about the outcome of an election based on polls, how they are using polls only has a tenuous relationship to reality.
This is a thread where someone made the statement "Trump would win if the election was today." based on polls. You said yourself, that's not what polls are for. Take it up with the person who is misusing the poll to make definitive statements like that rather than the person saying you can't trust the polls for that.
You can do ivf without that. It would just be very costly, very time consuming, and very frustrating. You just make one embryo at a time. Implant it without testing its viability. If it doesn't take, do it again. One at a time. It's an absolutely idiotic way to do it. But it is possible.
The person you expect to be sad also wanted to end the relationship because they realized they wanted children and were married to someone who didn't. It isn't just about the perspective/agenda of the trans person.
If I was faced with a choice between breaking someone who I loved's heart or never being a mother, it would be relieving to have that no longer be weighing on me.