veleth

Not necessarily, but searching a data set that’s not ordered relies on an assumption that there’s a single thing you’re looking for.

If there are 10 ingredients, you get sick and you only take half next time, you need to be able to assume that there’s one set of 5 that doesn’t get you sick and one that does, and so on until you get down to the last ingredient.

It’s a good way to e.g. quickly find the right breaker in the box, because for each device/ socket there’s just one breaker that’s responsible, so flipping half of them gives you an actionable result

While solutions like STV instead of FPTP make perfect sense, I fear you’re underestimating the stupidity with which people forced to vote would cast their votes (eg crossing the first name they see or whatever).

In the context of the beacon of democracy, the US of A, the easiest way to sharply increase turnout would be to make the Election Day free for more people (for example by holding them during weekends), but I am afraid the current system is deliberately designed to disenfranchise those who can’t afford to take time off work

Increasing voter turnout is important but people have to do it for the right reasons. Otherwise, it’s going to be the same popularity contest as currently, just with a different flavor

The headline is a little stupid, but I’m assuming they took 800W or something similar as reference, otherwise they wouldn’t have ended up with over an hour.

Thanks for your perspective

The same Wikipedia article hints at both Zionist and Palestinian use of a similar phrase even before PLO adopted it, so I am not sure if we can just plainly state that the cited sentiment is the original one behind this phrase.

I have a honest question though - if one calls for a one state solution, would you say that it always entails destroying one or the other?

In my imagination, even if it’s quite naïve, if there ever was a peaceful one-state resolution to this mess, it would indeed require superseding the ethno-state of Israel, but I don’t think it would necessarily be a destruction per se - similarly when the Russian Empire was superseded by the USSR, one could say that the Empire was destroyed but to me it was more of a regime change and policy shift (of course forced by a brutal civil war, but still, I don’t think it was destruction in a way we’d normally imagine when hearing the word). The Russian state essentially persisted, just in a different form.