xor

That’s for startup ideas

Sure, but you do still have to actively go and spoil your vote - just staying at home muttering “I showed them” doesn’t count as participating

Well even if you believe political parties shouldn’t exist, you should still participate in your democracy. It’s not like the system goes away if you refuse to participate, so you might as well work within it

LGTM

Sorry, but vote splitting categorically is a thing. You can say “they won’t do better”, but on a fundamental level that just is how FPTP systems work. I don’t like it, you don’t like it, but here we are.

As a counterpoint, my country had a direct referendum on voting reform a while back. So yes, you absolutely can change a two party system by voting for one of the two parties.

You’re right, the right wing parties will do better

Is that the change you were going for?

The way you get to positive results is through grassroots movements (including within major parties), protest, and voting in a way that gets you as close to a good outcome as possible. Mamdani’s victory is a glowing example of that strategy working.

I think it’s also worth noting that the independent candidate (Cuomo) was not the 3rd party candidate - since Mamdani and Cuomo were the 2 viable candidates, Sliwa’s votes moved to the nearest viable candidate.

Lots of people seem to think that 3rd parties are defined by lack of party nomination

The issue is that voting for third parties doesn’t make third parties viable in first-past-the-post systems. I, for example, would love if my country had a diverse parliament, but I continue to vote for the saner major party in my constituency because if votes are split between them and the party I’d really like to be in power, then neither of them will be.

Tactical voting is the symptom of two party systems, not the cause.

This is basically kubernetes with a couple of custom resource definitions, no?

I mean if you replace “not write bugs” with “write tests”, this becomes a good metaphor

The state of Israel is behaving like Nazis, not “Jews”.

And nothing - especially not other people acting like fascists - legitimates supporting a man who systematically executed millions on the basis of religion and ethnicity.

I’m not sure I’d agree that tackling system factors would be required for a gun ban to reduce deaths - though some of those factors arguably could have more impact than the ban would.

I think one of those systemic issues is that the US has an unhealthy relationship with guns, from my understanding they’re often treated like toys rather than lethal weapons, and I think strict regulation would help combat that too.

I’d personally start by actually reading the announcement before complaining about it’s content but you do you I guess

from the firmware to the operating system

And it still wouldn’t make sense if he did 💀

Sure, but you absolutely were being condescending and obfuscating - my point was valid regardless of who “started it”

YSK, your reply is the equivalent of: cutting your nose to spite your face

Being a dick to people who otherwise might actually be amenable to your point of view actively works against your goals

Look at that - I know big boy words too

They gained seats, yes, but 4 seats isn’t exactly a landslide. They’re a force in local politics, but at the national level, they’re just really not a major player - at least not yet

I don’t think there’s a valid moral argument for burning anybody alive

Ok, and?

Oh yes, because clearly the intended reading of that comment was “you deserve to be free from the AI” /s