Optimist take: Because there is none! (whoo)
JayDee
joined 2 years ago
And steamdeckOS... whenever valve decides they're gonna release it for general use.
Is it possible to get the joke at runtime using the spectre exploit?
The 'document' part also seems to be insanely hit-or-miss from my amateur experience. Self-documenting design/code is... well, not. Auto-generated documentation is also usually just as bad IMO. Producing good documentation really is a skill in and of itself.
Also small personal opinion: If your abstraction layers or algorithms are based off a technical concept, you should probably attribute that concept and provide links to further research, to eliminate future ambiguity or in case your reader lacks that background. Future you will probably thank you and anyone like me who immediately gets lost in jargon soup will also be thankful.
I think you're assuming I mean "there are no fast and hard rules, period", when I mean "the structure of each group is mostly up to what the internal community decides is best".
There is no system that is perfect, but we've had the entirety of human history to show that authoritarian systems are consistently bad for the humans, like flesh between the cogs. I'd much rather a web of communities in solidarity and negotiation, using their collective knowledge to forge onward.
You use the old ladies on the balconies. They see everything.
Or whatever means you wanna do, there's no hard and fast rule on how the system is structured - just that hierarchies be limited and only exist as long as necessary, and authority remain as evenly distributed throughout the community as possible.
Everyone.
As opposed to disciplinary action carried out by a central authority, rule breakers just get slapped by every community member in a revolving door fashion.
I think a good solution would to just have that script autogenerated by the flatpak, honestly.
I've read up on all the voting systems and I think your take is incorrect. I want to be clear that both are better than FPTP and I politically support RCV more often because it is more well-known, because IT is actually the one with all the PR, not STAR voting. RCV does not get pitched because it is the ultimately best choice - it gets pitched because it's the most well-known from PR. Meanwhile it's mostly math geeks talking about STAR voting.
With that out of the way, RCV has issues that STAR voting does not.
Ranked choice deals with bizarre issues which makes it finicky in various cases. Because of how ranked choice works, during any round, parties with the most candidates end up with their votes most split, which can actually lead to candidates being eliminated early despite them having more overall support than other candidates. Ultimately this means the party with the most candidates actually gives its voting base the least amount of voting power. You can also have various cases where a third party candidate with very little majority support can flat out win elections through the premature elimination case. On top of this, your vote can often not be counted in RCV, called ballot exhaustion. This occurs if your top vote is eliminated after your other choices, leading to your ballot having no other candidates for your vote to go to.
I could also go into Arrow's Impossibility 'theorem' but it ends up not being useful to the overall conversation IMO.
Meanwhile, exhaustive testing has shown there is currently no known way to game STAR voting. The idea that voters picking extremes have more power in a STAR voting system is misguided. They cannot sway the space, they only make the mistake of essentially destroying their own nuance. What this does is it flattens the overall distribution curve - which does nothing major to actual results. If two candidates were the most likely to win, then they will still be spikes in the distribution and will proceed to runoff. If another candidate is less popular than the other two but still has a following, they will also still show up in the distribution the same - they will also not win and thus them not being in the runoff will not matter. It ultimately does not affect the end results of the election. The only edge case it deals with is equal votes at runoff, which is an edge case so unlikely that it shouldn't even be considered possible.
There is often a very limited market for underperforming hardware, which is how RISC-V chips will be starting out. There is a large amount of accumulated knowledge about, and workflow to accommodate, already established ISAs.
Due to most companies being publicly traded, taking risks is much less common, since a drop in profits could see a massive portion of the company's funds get pulled, or more likely the CEO being yanked by the board. So they play it safe and choose already established architectures.
The answer is that it doesn't have to be but it's simpler that way.
A transcript has to be written for a YouTube video essay, and there's not really a major reason you couldn't turn your transcript and footage into an article with a series of embedded gifs or graphics. It's just much simpler for creators to dedicate their time to one medium and not worry about losses in translation or similar issues.