What’s the point of writing 1200 words and interviewing multiple pollies for opinions on a bill that hasn’t even been published yet? This reads like manufactured controversy

This sounds a little like the AT protocol (or my weak understanding of it). AFAICT on a protocol level your identity and personal data is decoupled from a content aggregator.

Neither. They should be tagged as Alternative Medicine

Australia’s system is IRV (for the federal government / lower house). Schulze is significantly better.

IRV has the tendency to eliminate moderate candidates in the first round (only first preferences count in the first round) which is often where Condorcet candidates lie.

IRV doesn’t enforce two parties like FPTP but it still promotes polarisation.

and work stops while they call an ambulance?

Amazon workers told to work around dead colleague

Debian votes using the Schulze Method, which is a Condorcet method..

Condorcet methods attempt to answer the question “who would win if we asked everyone to vote on every pair of candidates”. Most of the variations between methods deal vary only where there are cyclic preferences e.g. people vote B over A, A over C and C over B.

They’re broadly considered the fairest voting systems available and they permit a candidate that everyone thinks is okay to win over polarising candidates (unlike first past the post and IRV, but like approval voting).

Back to the numbers, the big table is the reconstruction of the pairwise votes (people actually vote by ranking candidates but the ordering is taken to show your pairwise preferences)

Below that is the Schulze process steps being carried out. At the bottom the “Schwartz set” is the set of top, cyclic candidates. There is no cycle so there is only one candidate remaining and therefore a Condorcet candidate wins (the one people in general vote over everyone else).

Why would a tax on sugary drinks not cover corn syrup, which is a sugar?

It’s not something people reasoned their way towards, it’s constructed propaganda from the Fox News or Prager U crowd (I forget which). They discovered a long time ago that if they want their audiences to hate something that they can just straight up lie about what it is.

There’s a start stand up button?? I’ve never seen that - what does it even do?

It’s good news for OP who is railing against surcharges.

Having and using a debit card is functionally mandatory in Australia, so I don’t see anything better short of the government legislating GNU Taler acceptance.

The important bit is further down

Our Phillips tips follow the ISO 8764-1 standard, which is compatible with the JIS standard B 4633. In fact, of the three main standards, ASME, ISO, and JIS, the least strict standard is JIS. As shown below, the JIS dimensions almost all fall within the ASME or ISO acceptable dimensions. Therefore, any Phillips screwdriver, such as our new Tekton Phillips screwdrivers, can be made to meet JIS standards. In fact, you should expect that all well-made drivers that meet the ASME or ISO standards will also meet the JIS standard.

But yes, this doesn’t make clear if this has changed over time.

And yes, I used a Phillips screwdriver in JIS and vice versa multiple times.

That’s totally fine actually

Good news! Surcharges are ending in October

Interesting topic, awful article. Three photos, none of which are of the subject of the article, and all of which are captioned with the article title instead of real captions?

Here’s the actual car:

I got it from this much better article from TechCrunch

And here’s the the associated project, noRecognition. It’s a run of ai adversarial clothes.

The buybacks aren’t to remove them from people who will cause harm, they’re to reduce their prevalence so that in the future when someone who would cause harm goes looking it’s much harder to find a gun to use.

I think they increased personal details at the same time that they eliminated immediate destruction 2 censuses ago. The change came alongside a promise of “anonymisation” which was roundly mocked for being not actually anonymisation (rather deidentification) and trivially reversible. IIRC they made one minor change that didn’t really fix anything and called it a day. Nobody talked about it the next census.

Where’s the violence?

If it helps there’s a standalone version of the logic.

At a rough scan, it looks like it tries to find a best guess “main content” node by stripping unlikely nodes and then scoring each node. Element type and content contribute to the score

/**
       * Loop through all paragraphs, and assign a score to them based on how content-y they look.
       * Then add their score to their parent node.
       *
       * A score is determined by things like number of commas, class names, etc. Maybe eventually link density.
       **/

What options does it have? Just male/female/trans?

That’s disappointing to hear. Which core did you get?