EDIT: in advance of questions, to explain the difference, what you have described is called political compromise (finding solution that suits both parties). We need MORE of that. Corruption is when politician personally benefit from "selling" their votes.
If you rely on free packages in Python for processing, those are as likely to become obsolete as anything else (if not more likely). I also really dislike the compatibility issues with different versions of different packages, the whole environment aspect. Buying new computer with different version of windows? Who knows what will work there.
In this sense for scientific computation I prefer something like MATLAB. Code written 40 years ago, most likely would still work. New computer? No problem, no configuration, just install Matlab, and it runs! Yes, it costs money, but you get what you paid for. Mathematica is another option, but I mean ugh!
The advantage of meme is that it can throw away any nuanced discussion. Even if it is completely incorrect in messaging, arguing with it will look stupid.
You totally missing my point. Who was aggressor in WW2? Were allies aggressors when they entered with military force (have no idea what word to use, since you do not like liberated) into Germany?
I would not call Canadian healthcare system a blunder. I would, however, in US. Free market is a great thing, but it requires a competition of both buyers and sellers and ability to try and fail. If failing means death for you, that's not really a good match for the market, is not it? Same goes true for police, armed forces, courts and so on.
Yes they do have to do compromises, they do them all the time. Compromises on who to cater to and who to piss off...
I am not saying they do not do any compromises. I am saying they do not have to do EXTRA compromises to form coalition. And those compromises could be particularly great.
Btw you can have a party holding +50% of the seats in multi-party democracy too.
That, by itself, is not a good thing, since that would essentially mean that there is no strong opposition. I am of opinion that strong opposition is always needed. It keeps party in power "more honest". This is again advantage of the two party system, as I mentioned before.
They’ve already made more compromises than a smaller party typically would have to since they’re trying to cater to so many people. Of course they still have to do compromises like the mentioned senate, house, presidential thing that we don’t really have, but that’s more not really a two/multi party thing.
For the purpose of our discussion, it nearly does not matter how they come up with the platform before you vote. What matters is what happens after your choice. Whether your choice can be overwritten by necessity to create coalition. The voter becomes more removed from the policy of the ruling coalition than from the party in two party system.
It’s a strange idea that +50% seats in two party system good but bad in multi-party system.
What is good and bad is not 51% seats, but the 49% of opposition. In situation when you have multi-party system and 51% are in hands of one party, it does not mean that you have 49% of strong opposition! Most likely you have like 20% and the rest are in-between to be opposed or not opposed. Opposition is not united in this case and can do nothing. It is weak. Not so for two party system. 51% is barely majority.
Also two party system is no guarantee for a strong opposition. You can easily have a situation where one clearly dominates.
I agree with that in principle, but in practice, if one party starts taking 80% of votes, the other will adjust. On top of this, this situation is no different from 80% case in multi-party system so it is not what differentiate one from another.
In multy-party system, you often end up voting for a party that then on your behalf makes deals with other parties to form coalition, deals you did not agree upon. It is like delegation of duty, or rather usurpation of your vote. And you still end up with fucked up government that does not reflect your values. In two party system you are the one who are forced to make those compromises.
In multiparty system, often one coalition (or even party) dominates for many years and election cycles. The two party system nearly guarantees strong opposition.
Considering AI development, please stay tuned. So, I doubt that we will see “planet of apes” as “society 2”. Sorry, monkey. However, there is still “society 3” possible, depending on our AI overlords. So, as I said, stay tuned.
You do not know what solder saw. But I am still insisting this can not be rifle shot. If anyone ever was near shooting rifle, they would know it is much louder.
I have seen enough shooting videos to say that this is not true. The sound even using phone should be much louder. Not as lows as in real life, but loud and echo should be heard for quite some time.
Step-By-Step Guide to Buy a Senator (lemmy.whynotdrs.org)
cross-posted from: lemmy.whynotdrs.org/post/399058...
abandonware empires (mander.xyz)
Double blind win (by skeletonclaw) (lemmy.world)
This post (lemmy.world)
Yes, also Teslas (media.mastodon.scot)
Stop or gas it? (thumbsnap.com)
Today I will teach you about democracy packages (fanaticus.social)
The two most stolen items (kolektiva.social)
alt textTHE TWO MOST STOLEN ITEMS IN THE WORLD: a pen labeled Surplus Value of Workers Labor, and a lighter labeled Indigenous Land
You can even leave your doors unlocked and let your guard down. (startrek.website)
Counterterror Director Used Hamas Attack to Justify Mass (USA) Surveillance Program Renewal (theintercept.com)
Help please 🥺🥺🥺 (kyberpunk.social)
I live in crackland (Portland)
Two Party System. Why. (lemmy.zip)
EDIT: To the people downvoting this post because democrats > republicans: you’re missing the point.
Waiting on that update (lemmy.world)
Palestinian girl filming Israeli soldiers gets shot at in the West Bank (streamable.com)
So let me refer to my “stop using antisemitic words” chart…...
Poverty isn't a flaw its a feature. (lemmy.ml)