This is kinda how I feel. On one hand it’s a little refreshing, on the other IDK seems a little like I’m laying the groundwork for a mid life crisis

I think most people would agree that it does matter how rare it is.

Even if imperfect, ranked choice voting would give voters considerably more voice than they have now. That could be used to, for example, vote in another method in the future.

Don’t be too relieved. There’s a bill banning RCV that passed the Texas Senate and is being considered by the House: https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1751192

deleted by creator

Nothing is wrong with trees, but the microalgae CO2 capture rate is 50x higher````` .

Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is the single-winner analogue of STV. It is also called single-winner ranked-choice voting and preferential voting

Seems like STV is an extension of ranked choice voting for the special case of multiple-winner elections.

Sanders is a rare voice for progressive, prosocial reform in the US. His policy positions resonate with many of us who feel that government should support ordinary people at least as much as the obscenely wealthy.

But beyond that, he’s genuine and his messaging has been consistent for decades. You can literally find images of him being arrested fighting for social justice in the 60’s.

Also he’s sharp and nearly every time he makes a point he drops the facts to support it.

Oh look, he literally just led a motion to block arms sales to Israel last week

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-senate-overwhelmingly-votes-down-sanders-motions-to-block-arms-sales-to-israel/

It goes to whoever can provide Bitcoin. So, likely an exchange. Which ultimately gives the money to people selling Bitcoin. Many of whom are in North Korea and Russia.

Crypto investment is very risky. Too volatile. Too virtual. No protection against theft/fraud. Also a govt should really invest in companies in its own jurisdiction.

I think this question could be interpreted in many ways, but typically education is correlated with more religious participation.

For Mennonites specifically, education is one of their core values. They also did a study on what matters most to their members that you can check if you’re interested: https://www.mennoniteusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/MC-USA-Report-FN-compressed-1.pdf

Personally, I think a lot of their belief system and activism efforts just make sense and appeal based on their own merits.

There are many kinds of Mennonites. Most that I know are pretty scientific and well-educated.

Behind a shattered door, the adventurers find a tent, bags of gear, smouldering fireplace, and smell roasting mutton. It seems abandoned only seconds ago, but on closer inspection the tent is mouldering, the gear mostly rusted through, and the fireplace only ancient charcoal.

(A party of adventurers passed through 20 years before, and were ambushed and dragged off to be eaten in the dead of night. Their ghosts remain, giving a semblance of life to the camp as they relive their final moments)

At least in the US, tipping is the accepted way that we compensate certain people for their time.

If you habitually never tip, you are not paying for the service that you receive in good faith. This is theft of service.

If you don’t like tipping, patronize places that include the tip in the bill. Tell restaurant owners to change their pay structure to avoid it. It won’t be changed by you individually shirking your obligation to pay.

Your choice not to tip will make no difference to the company, but every difference to a person who suffers through customer service for a living.

“I don’t want to subsidize a company” is just you inventing a convenient way to justify what is essentially theft. Why stop at not tipping? You could probably get away with stealing IDK, playground equipment too.

That seems fair

Omg FINALLY fixed this game-breaking mechanic

Thanks for the quote, but it’s still not a cut to the grant itself.

Believe it or not, I also think university research depts should continue to exist and that major budget shortfalls due to this are not in our best interest.

Hope your abrasive remarks are making you feel better.

If my statement was wrong, feel free to correct it. But based on reading the article, this change is not a “cut” to grants as you indicated in your title.

Will this change cause significant disruption? Almost certainly. But there’s an argument to be made for the change, namely that NIH grants should support the science rather than the university and that university overhead costs should be subsidized in some other way.

This isn’t a cut (yet), it’s a budgetary allocation requirement. It matches what is already required by most private non-profits.

Translation: following time travel, everything resets to exactly as it was before time travel.

Not exactly groundbreaking, considering this is assumed by the premise of a closed timeline curve.