Humans are apes which are monkeys which are primates. Taxonomically speaking of course. In common parlance they can be considered distinct, but this isn’t scientifically accurate.

Your statement is like saying both iPhones and smart phones are phones. It’s technically true but it contains a logical error in you are implying a comparable status between one category and another category that contains the first.

Very interesting article. I am very curious about the project they mentioned in Niger, if anyone has more information.

Sounds like you lack an understanding of taxonomy. But, to be completely fair to you, that is a typical state of knowledge for monkeys.

Humans are monkeys. We can’t not fuck like monkeys, it’s literally impossible.

In one single election, yes. It means nothing, especially when you understand that his job is not to generate an accurate prediction, it’s to energize core supporters into donating to the campaign.

By the way, you can make the same argument in reverse—Trump always overperforms his polling right? If that prediction is accurate then Biden is absolutely going to get trounced. Now I don’t necessarily think this is correct, but it’s a slightly more sophisticated version of the fallacy you are falling prey to here.

Lol no that’s not how any of this works. If I flip a coin and correctly pick the outcome in 2024 will you start paying me to forecast elections?

All true but just fine again may depend on your definition. It’s going to cause major inconvenience for everyone at minimum I think.

Party strategists always say their party is going to do well. It’s part of their job. I don’t think this is particularly meaningful, unless you think there’s some particular methodology he has access to that’s better than Silver’s.

OK so probably a translation issue. But to respond to your statement, if your city announced it would punish illegal parking with penalties ranging from 3 years imprisonment to fucking murder, which would you be more concerned with? And which would you rather local journalists make you aware of? Would you really be criticizing their clickbait headlines if they ran a similar story?

Like I said, focusing on the more severe possible punishment makes perfect sense in this context. Not to mention that all of the punishments are extremely excessive.

I mean I think it makes sense to focus on the most severe possible punishment in this context.

That said, I did not find any mention of the death penalty in the linked page. I do not speak Chinese so I was relying on the translation feature in my browser, so I’m not sure if it was mistranslated, the article is wrong about that, or what. Curious if anyone has further information on this.

What are you referring to here? Your statement seems to contradict not just the headline but the entire article.

I think partially but you missed a key factor which is that most new homes in California require rooftop solar. So the net-metering change only affects individuals adding solar since it’s optional for them. SF builds an extremely low number of new homes compared to the rest of the state, so they have less of a foundation to fall back on when individuals stopped installing systems.

And?!

Sadly I doubt the US would ever go along with this even though our citizens would strongly support it. The wealthy have too much power here.

It seems like every voting system has pros and cons, but I’ve become interested in STAR voting as it seems to have a nice blend of positive characteristics without the worst flaws of other systems.

It’s effectively a mix of score voting and instant runoff (ranked choice).

You can read more here: https://www.starvoting.org/

It hasn’t been tested much, mainly because it’s relatively unknown, so I’d like to see more real-world testing before I say it’s the best, but it’s definitely intriguing.

We have a similar system in California called the jungle primary—basically there are no party specific primaries (except for president because this system is incompatible with other state’s elections), and the top two advance to the general election.

There are a few issues though. If a candidate wins more than 50% of all votes in the primary, they win the election and don’t appear on the ballot in the general election along with the president. Since there is generally higher turnout for the general election rather than the primary, you can sometimes have a generally unpopular candidate win in the primary with 50+% of the small number of primary voters.

We also have issues with spoilers—if a bunch of similar candidates run, and all split the votes between them, it’s possible they don’t make the final ballot, even if any of them individually would have won the final election. This seems like a fringe issue until you realize that parties have actually supported lots of minor candidates on the opposing side in order to eliminate an otherwise dangerous challenger.

So overall it is somewhat better than first past the post but it still has significant issues. In general I think elections that select a single candidate are somewhat undemocratic by nature and we should think about ways to give the minority a voice but not the ability to shut things down. This may be a difficult balance to achieve but it’s still worth aiming for.

Awesome tool, thanks for sharing. I wish they included STAR voting since I’ve become interested in that one.

Long-term, possibly. But if the collapse happens too quickly it may cause a lot of issues. A slow steady decline would be best but may be difficult to achieve.

Also don’t forget !climate@slrpnk.net for those unaware. It is quite active. Might make sense to focus content there even though it’s a separate instance.

Of course, if you specifically wanted a similar community on Lemmy.world, then feel free to ignore this.

I think you’re being a bit too generous. Despite the fact that this particular video was pretty good overall (though the potshot at environmental activists at the end was wholly unnecessary and the opposite of helpful) I didn’t hear any real admission that her past views were mistaken here. If what you say is true, then she needed to own up to that far more clearly than she did.

Although I have only watched a few of her videos in the past before stopping. I found them quite opinionated and misinformed. So I don’t have the full context of what exactly she got wrong previously.