Ranked choice in the US is pretty much only instant-runoff (IRV).
All the votes are tallied for a voter's first preference, if no majority winner then the ballots for the lowest-voted candidate are re-tallied for their next preference - repeat until some candidate gets a majority.
It is a terrible voting system, mathematically only barely better than first-past-the-post. The reason (in my opinion) that it has gotten some traction in the US is that it is the change that is least-threatening to the party duopoly, with the math telling us that is supports the same big-tent duopoly that FPTP does as an end-state.
A better form of it is the condorcet method, where candidates are compared pairwise based on preferences. E.g. on how many ballots is candidate A ranked above candidate B? The winner of such an election is the one who wins the greatest number of head-to-head elections.
STAR is interesting, but I personally find it too complex and it fails at preventing many different electoral pathologies.
Approval voting is the method I prefer (mark all candidates you approve for holding this office). Immune to spoilers, simple to explain, adaptable to single and multi-winner elections, and ensures that the candidate that has the broadest electoral support wins.
There are a few edge cases that are generally considered 'bad' and best avoided in the study of voting methods. Things such as voting for a candidate actually reducing the chance the voter receives an outcome they would be happy with, or of there being a single person whose vote could alter the outcome of the election.
The particular passage they linked is talking about the spoiler effect, where a candidate close in ideology to another candidate causes both of them to lose and a candidate of a different ideology than the one with the most support wins. E.g. in 1912 Roosevelt ran against Taft, allowing Woodrow Wilson to win with 40 ish percent of the vote, despite Taft and Teddy have a majority between them and being much closer on policy.
Arrow's impossibility theorem is a formal statement (and accompanying proof) that any ordinal system of voting, where voters indicate relative preferences between candidates, is subject to the spoiler effect. First past the post and ranked choice voting are among the worst in this regard, creating spoilers even in cases where voter preferences do not require such a condition to exist.
Other majority-rule systems such as condorcet methods are less sensitive to spoilers and, under certain models of voter preferences (e.g. smooth ideological preference 'i like candidates on the right and I like them less the more left they are), is immune to spoilers.
Not achievable with current tech, but there has been more interest in miniature fusion reactors lately.
The generally thinking is that it becomes easier to contain the plasma in smaller formfactors where the field strength is higher - a power plant would then be hundreds of tiny units working in concert rather than one big one. Of course, its fusion so nothing 'real' has come out of it yet, and it is unlikely something man-portable and energy dense enough to power iron man ever will.
Healthcare has its own problems, but the 12 hour shift model was adopted because it improved patient outcomes. Only having 1 shift change per day provided less opportunity for patient context to get lost in the shuffle. In short, overworked doctors/nurses were better (for patients) than uninformed doctors/nurses.
Moving to 6 hour shifts/4 changes per day would quadruple that risk.
Now, there are plenty of ways to imagine changing procedures, policies, and tooling to reduce this risk, but it would require planning.
Polynesian mythology places strong emphasis on hair. Hair is the source of mana, evidence of warrior prowess, directly symbolizing strength and connection to ancestors.
You can't really have a Polynesian demigod portrayed as a bald guy, it would be like having a beardless twink in jeans and wife beater play Santa.
AI isn't necessary for that kind of search, however. A simple vector database lookup would do, and rather than passing the output through an unreliable narration layer, it would simply return the source texts directly.
Semantic search is a great technology, but it is separate from and independent of 'AI'.
Das Deutsch ~ 'The people'
Deutschland ~ 'Land of the people'
It happens in many languages, whatever words are used for the main group generally translate best to just 'people' if you adopt their perspective. In English, Deutsch/Deutscher would probably be translated as 'The German people' or 'Germans', but the Germans themselves aren't going to call themselves 'The German People', they'll just call themselves 'People' and the English are 'die Engländer'.
But you have to make this distinction, otherwise Deutsch means 'people' and English, French, Italian, American, Swedish, etc. also all mean 'people' - but they are talking about different things.
The moon is receding from the Earth and would eventually roughly double its orbital period, while Earth's rotation would nearly stop (one rotation every 47 days), and both would be tidally locked to the other. The same side of the Earth would always face the moon, and the same side of the moon would always face the Earth (as happens currently).
This is all assuming the system would continue unperturbed forever, however, it won't. Before the above happens, the sun will turn into a red giant and the drag from the expanded atmosphere will slow down the orbits of both the Earth and Moon, eventually leading to them both ceasing to exist - the moon from reaching the Roche limit above the Earth, and the the Earth from entering the Sun's photosphere and eventually spiraling into the core.
The article recommends gaslighting the public to sidestep opposition to the AI rollout, while embedding AI into education, healthcare, and routine governance.
Energy is an issue for theories of life on Pluto. The sun is incredibly faint, irradiance of 1/1600th that on Earth, so photosynthesis likely isn't feasible.
Pluto is quite small, and therefore almost certainly is geologically dead (no molten core - the heat has already escaped) like Mars - so thermal vents are also unlikely to be widespread.
Pluto has a low density for a rocky world, about 50% less than the moon, so the heavier radioactive elements cannot be present in large amounts (as would be predicted from its position high up in the system's gravity well).
So, with poor prospects for photosynthesis, poor prospects for geothermal energy availability, and poor prospects for radioactive decay - where would simple Cthonian lifeforms get their energy from?
What we know is that general relativity fails to explain gravitational interactions at very large scales for the matter we can see in telescopes.
The simplest answer for this conundrum is that there is extra matter that we can't see in telescopes - aka it is 'dark' matter. This substance doesn't appear to interact at all outside of gravity - which is a property we haven't observed anywhere else. Further, in order to explain the motions we see, it would have to outweigh all the visible matter in the universe by a factor of 5, which seems to strain credibility given that - again - we have never seen anything like it.
Another answer for the observations is we are wrong about gravity, that it behaves differently at very large scales. This doesn't require a massive amount of invisible magic substance conveniently spread throughout the universe, but to date no theory has been able to explain all the strange observations - and Dark Matter remains the moderate consensus view.
This doesn't mean dark matter absolutely exists, it is just a hole in our current understanding. We've been looking for it for nearly a century and have yet to find direct evidence. In fact, there isn't even one theory of Dark Matter because it also has difficulty explaining every available observation.
In summary: we have mountains and mountains of evidence that our current theory of gravity fail to explain the big stuff, we have exceedingly little evidence as to what the disconnect with reality is.
MPs = members of parliament
Hydrogen has one of the widest explosive ranges of all fuels. It will burn in air anywhere between 4% and 75% hydrogen by volume.
Ranked choice in the US is pretty much only instant-runoff (IRV).
All the votes are tallied for a voter's first preference, if no majority winner then the ballots for the lowest-voted candidate are re-tallied for their next preference - repeat until some candidate gets a majority.
It is a terrible voting system, mathematically only barely better than first-past-the-post. The reason (in my opinion) that it has gotten some traction in the US is that it is the change that is least-threatening to the party duopoly, with the math telling us that is supports the same big-tent duopoly that FPTP does as an end-state.
A better form of it is the condorcet method, where candidates are compared pairwise based on preferences. E.g. on how many ballots is candidate A ranked above candidate B? The winner of such an election is the one who wins the greatest number of head-to-head elections.
STAR is interesting, but I personally find it too complex and it fails at preventing many different electoral pathologies.
Approval voting is the method I prefer (mark all candidates you approve for holding this office). Immune to spoilers, simple to explain, adaptable to single and multi-winner elections, and ensures that the candidate that has the broadest electoral support wins.
There are a few edge cases that are generally considered 'bad' and best avoided in the study of voting methods. Things such as voting for a candidate actually reducing the chance the voter receives an outcome they would be happy with, or of there being a single person whose vote could alter the outcome of the election.
The particular passage they linked is talking about the spoiler effect, where a candidate close in ideology to another candidate causes both of them to lose and a candidate of a different ideology than the one with the most support wins. E.g. in 1912 Roosevelt ran against Taft, allowing Woodrow Wilson to win with 40 ish percent of the vote, despite Taft and Teddy have a majority between them and being much closer on policy.
Arrow's impossibility theorem is a formal statement (and accompanying proof) that any ordinal system of voting, where voters indicate relative preferences between candidates, is subject to the spoiler effect. First past the post and ranked choice voting are among the worst in this regard, creating spoilers even in cases where voter preferences do not require such a condition to exist.
Other majority-rule systems such as condorcet methods are less sensitive to spoilers and, under certain models of voter preferences (e.g. smooth ideological preference 'i like candidates on the right and I like them less the more left they are), is immune to spoilers.
Not achievable with current tech, but there has been more interest in miniature fusion reactors lately.
The generally thinking is that it becomes easier to contain the plasma in smaller formfactors where the field strength is higher - a power plant would then be hundreds of tiny units working in concert rather than one big one. Of course, its fusion so nothing 'real' has come out of it yet, and it is unlikely something man-portable and energy dense enough to power iron man ever will.
The data would still be encrypted. Sure, they could try to brute-force the key but it is very unlikely they try that on some rando's phone.
Peaceful life.
Looks inside
God of WAR
All the big tech companies are built on open source projects... No idea what the guy you replied to was on about.
Any useful thing you code will be used to feed the beast.
Healthcare has its own problems, but the 12 hour shift model was adopted because it improved patient outcomes. Only having 1 shift change per day provided less opportunity for patient context to get lost in the shuffle. In short, overworked doctors/nurses were better (for patients) than uninformed doctors/nurses.
Moving to 6 hour shifts/4 changes per day would quadruple that risk.
Now, there are plenty of ways to imagine changing procedures, policies, and tooling to reduce this risk, but it would require planning.
Polynesian mythology places strong emphasis on hair. Hair is the source of mana, evidence of warrior prowess, directly symbolizing strength and connection to ancestors.
You can't really have a Polynesian demigod portrayed as a bald guy, it would be like having a beardless twink in jeans and wife beater play Santa.
AI isn't necessary for that kind of search, however. A simple vector database lookup would do, and rather than passing the output through an unreliable narration layer, it would simply return the source texts directly.
Semantic search is a great technology, but it is separate from and independent of 'AI'.
You need to learn about mass balances.
Das Deutsch ~ 'The people' Deutschland ~ 'Land of the people'
It happens in many languages, whatever words are used for the main group generally translate best to just 'people' if you adopt their perspective. In English, Deutsch/Deutscher would probably be translated as 'The German people' or 'Germans', but the Germans themselves aren't going to call themselves 'The German People', they'll just call themselves 'People' and the English are 'die Engländer'.
But you have to make this distinction, otherwise Deutsch means 'people' and English, French, Italian, American, Swedish, etc. also all mean 'people' - but they are talking about different things.
The moon is receding from the Earth and would eventually roughly double its orbital period, while Earth's rotation would nearly stop (one rotation every 47 days), and both would be tidally locked to the other. The same side of the Earth would always face the moon, and the same side of the moon would always face the Earth (as happens currently).
This is all assuming the system would continue unperturbed forever, however, it won't. Before the above happens, the sun will turn into a red giant and the drag from the expanded atmosphere will slow down the orbits of both the Earth and Moon, eventually leading to them both ceasing to exist - the moon from reaching the Roche limit above the Earth, and the the Earth from entering the Sun's photosphere and eventually spiraling into the core.
The article recommends gaslighting the public to sidestep opposition to the AI rollout, while embedding AI into education, healthcare, and routine governance.
Wonderful
Energy is an issue for theories of life on Pluto. The sun is incredibly faint, irradiance of 1/1600th that on Earth, so photosynthesis likely isn't feasible.
Pluto is quite small, and therefore almost certainly is geologically dead (no molten core - the heat has already escaped) like Mars - so thermal vents are also unlikely to be widespread.
Pluto has a low density for a rocky world, about 50% less than the moon, so the heavier radioactive elements cannot be present in large amounts (as would be predicted from its position high up in the system's gravity well).
So, with poor prospects for photosynthesis, poor prospects for geothermal energy availability, and poor prospects for radioactive decay - where would simple Cthonian lifeforms get their energy from?
He did a good job with the (admittedly small) part of the emperor in Dune.
Your traffic is encrypted, but it is still possible to see what sites you are visiting without a VPN.
With a VPN, all your traffic will just be to the VPN server, and any logs of the sites you visit will sit with the VPN operator.
That would prevent cell signals from inside, making it harder to (e.g.) call the fire department, or an ambulance.
What we know is that general relativity fails to explain gravitational interactions at very large scales for the matter we can see in telescopes.
The simplest answer for this conundrum is that there is extra matter that we can't see in telescopes - aka it is 'dark' matter. This substance doesn't appear to interact at all outside of gravity - which is a property we haven't observed anywhere else. Further, in order to explain the motions we see, it would have to outweigh all the visible matter in the universe by a factor of 5, which seems to strain credibility given that - again - we have never seen anything like it.
Another answer for the observations is we are wrong about gravity, that it behaves differently at very large scales. This doesn't require a massive amount of invisible magic substance conveniently spread throughout the universe, but to date no theory has been able to explain all the strange observations - and Dark Matter remains the moderate consensus view.
This doesn't mean dark matter absolutely exists, it is just a hole in our current understanding. We've been looking for it for nearly a century and have yet to find direct evidence. In fact, there isn't even one theory of Dark Matter because it also has difficulty explaining every available observation.
In summary: we have mountains and mountains of evidence that our current theory of gravity fail to explain the big stuff, we have exceedingly little evidence as to what the disconnect with reality is.