Basically for a race with multiple open seats, just keep repeating the "compare the top two rated candidates" step filling each seat with the winner of the comparison until all seats are filled, doesn't just fill seats though, because the win matrix can also be used as a list of succession in case of recalls or deaths or resignations that'd leave a vacancy.

We'd see a lot of districts seat all dems and reps at the outset, but over time you'd see a much more diverse cast and a much less party hierarchy controllable process.

Being economically fucked over doesn't make you not a racist dirtbag, especially when you keep voting for the racist dirtbags who have done nothing for you except validate racist dirtbag behavior.

Like seriously, it's pretty fucking hard to beat the racism allegations when that's literally the only possible draw the people you keep electing could possibly have.

These people vote against their own economic interests, and they see it as the price they pay to feel like they can defend saying the N-Word at the dinner table this thanksgiving.

My big wish is multi-winner STAR where possible.

Doesn't just make viable 3rd parties a reality, but makes it incredibly likely for them to get a leg into the race a lot sooner.

Instituting it at the congressional level can also eliminate the traditional stresses of coalition building that affect other multi-partisan democracies, because now when the government experiences a no confidence vote and the leader has to resign, we don't need new elections and new coalition talks, just go back to the original coalition vote results and promote the next guy in charge into the officer position that was vacated, voilà, new governing coalition ready to go.

There's lightyears of difference between "stop throwing paint on statues and blocking roads" and "stop sitting on your privilege with your vote and allowing the disemprivileged to be meat grindered because you think this time it'll teach the incredibly privileged who happen to be nearest to you politically a lesson."

We can't do those aqueduct screw things?

Honestly I'd be more relieved that there isn't an ex in the picture she's tied to via the kid!

Got a bit interested in AAVE when I happened to end up as the token white guy in a D&I club that was literally entirely black women and one AFAB Black NB.

Felt like a kid getting a gold star sticker when one of them said I was understanding their stuff better than the assigned prof who was a literal trained expert on the stuff, mostly because they was a real jackass.

Aggressively rubs barbecue sauce on a rotisserie chicken

"Yeah you like that don't you, you slut!"

6 or 7, tried pegging with my GF, wasn't offended enough by the experience to turn down her being giddy about doing it again.

Mildly worried that she's buying something brand new specifically to use on me.

We also get thirds every so often when we want to have an occasion

This does make me wonder how expensive it'd be to set up a trans continental irrigation system, basically just moving surplus water in places like the southeast or northwest to drought locations like in california or the southwest to take the pressure off of local water resources.

Probably by certifying intent beforehand and having them provide exit support so you can go to Iran and spend the rest of your life there out of reach of US retaliation, assuming a minimal willingness to hunt you down in a foreign nation.

Things would probably get complicated if the regime collapsed though, non zero chance those 80 million dollars would become useless as a new state tries to establish its own monetary policy, and that's assuming they aren't western friendly and decide to extradite you to curry favor.

I don't get why this was down voted, none of those points are asking much

I maintain that calling them Redcaps, basically an especially spiteful and nasty kind of goblin, is the most fitting way to label them

I mean with all those hurricanes the man's probably drowning in insurance premiums alone!

/S

The quote was a hyperbolic answer to someone sarcastically suggesting I was trying to act smarter than everyone else because the question is an infamous example of self styled philosophers simultaneously over and under thinking questions.

Overly obsessing the meaning they've read into what was originally posed as satire, and yet underthinking the details and implications of the scenarios they're describing.

We are expected to take the question as if we were there in person and yet they are not expected to adhere to a setting in which we could be there in person.

It's very "rules for thee..." and the fact that self proclaimed philosophers go so out of the way to insist on this supposed deep and foundational question really shoots the credibility of the profession to pieces if such a faulty question is actually as important to the lot as the people trying to insist I'm some uneducated ape for pointing out that "someone will die anyways" scenarios are inherently suspect.

You may have heard that the "Donut shaped universe" theory has been picking up some steam, well one particular version of the theory speculates that the universe exists cyclically, basically that the universe expands to heat death, eventually begins to contract again, and a new big bang occurs once it compressed all the way back down to singularity size.

Basically, it was never created, it always has and will be, we just exist in the pocket of time in which it's fresh off of the latest explosive rebound, relative to the scale of time in which the full cycle plays out that is.

says philosophers should exercise more intellect

gets called anti-intellectual

There's weapon's grade something in this discussion but if it's anti-intellectualism I ain't the one bringing it son.

If such a faulty experiment is the basis of our ethics it's little wonder why the world has become such a cynical and nihilistic place.

Suggesting an alternative isn't refusing to engage with the hypothetical, it's engaging in the hypothetical in a way that someone who thinks they're so smart for studying philosophy should really fucking know how to entertain.

And again, the whole question was devised to point out that both answers are horrifying, morally bankrupt, and a logical conclusion of a faulty school of ethics, so insisting the question is "basic ethical philosophy" is just damning the entire foundation even more.

You're not making a case that I should feel embarrassed about a snafu in philosophical thinking, you're making a case that the real trolley problem is whether I should have gone back and shot the philosophy majors you think were snickering behind my back before they could do any actual damage by indoctrinating someone with actual deciding power into their effective death cult school of ethics where never thinking twice about "someone dies anyways" outcomes is perfectly reasonable.

Your "foundational ethics question" is equally as ridiculous as asking if I'd cheat on my SO if it would cure their cancer and also they wouldn't forgive me for it. That's not how anything ever works and insisting there's some deep meaning in it is a farce, and the author of the question itself intended for it to be a farce, and trying to defend it as anything but a farce just makes you a farce

Anything not bolted down, benches, trash cans, hell if it's small enough you could try throwing stuff at it directly to tip it off the track

If reminding a bunch of people that trolleys are typically built in places with a lot of stuff that can be thrown on the track is all it takes to "beat" philosophy, then maybe the philosophers didn't have anything to say worth listening to in the first place.

Especially when they're trying to ask questions to determine a moral course of action, why does anyone have to die when some property damage would do the trick just as well?

That's why the question was devised in the first place, to illustrate how ridiculous the two schools of thought represented by either decision were when taken to their logical conclusion.

The original correct answer was to do something more productive than just standing around with your thumb up your ass debating utilitarianism vs not taking a direct action to kill someone.