I think we are talking about two different things. I’m talking about individual policies, and I think you are talking about elected representatives. I do agree that percentages of representatives should match the population, but votes on individual policies should always match what the majority of the population wants.

“Also majorities are slow to change, and it’s simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one’s vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of.”

It doesn’t. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn’t make your vote count less. It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.

I’d say countries that devolve into dictatorship aren’t due to too much democracy but due to weak constitutional protections.

Right now in the US we are in danger of devolving into a dictatorship because of the extra weight added to minority votes.

Edit: and by minority votes I’m talking about policies with less than 50% support.

That’s a bit more than just math. When considering a policy, I don’t tend to take into account where the different parties stand. It’s better to think for yourself and not resort to tribalism. With that in mind I do think the majority should win 100% of the time. It has been insanely annoying here in the US how some policies have had popular support for years if not decades yet go nowhere because of small interest groups who use cheap tricks like the fillibuster and the electoral college to ensure the will of the minority wins out. I do acknowledge the danger of the tyranny of the majority, but I think protections against it should be provided by the rights outlined in a strong constitution.

Still better than every other option.

I’ve always heard “in oder to be successful you have to be able or willing to do things others can’t or wont”. Global competition and increased technology has pretty well evened out the ability side of that quote leaving behind the other factor of what people are willing to do. I think the biggest decider on what people are willing to do is based on personal morals and ethics, so a person more willing to ignore ethics has a better chance of becoming successful. This is supported by statistics that show corporate executives and politicians exibiting psychopathic traits at higher rates than the general population. The only way I can think of to correct this is to have regulations on ethics, which is why I whole-heartedly support the CFPB and despise Republicans who try to shut it down.

Yeah. Mainly I go for the “what are you watching this week” stickied post to get an idea of what new shows might be worth trying.

Yep, unfortunately I still have to go to r/television on reddit to find good recommendations because the television community here is dead.

I would say Trump might deserve some of the blame for the pandemic because he cut the CDC’s pandemic response funding in the 1st or 2nd year of his term.

It’s just one more thing to memorize when trying to learn them. I’m not going to intuitively know what gender a chair is…

I mean it is an accurate description of it, so that might be a connection… but if you know the actual history of the term then please share

I don’t know why, but I never made the connection of this pose to the term “reared-up” (meaning ready to go/launch) until recently.

It should probably be expected that any country with the means will interfere in other countries elections. What bothered me most in 2016 was not so much what Russia did, but that we didn’t seem to have much of a response to it. And yes can we please support democracy and not authoritarians. I feel like the whole cold war was about capitalism vs communism when it should have been about democracy vs authoritarianism.

I don’t know much about investing, but i wonder if it would it be a good time to short those companies?

I remember a documentary about a famous northwest passage expedition that was never seen again. One of the inuit people they talked to during an investigation claimed they found a boat, and in the captain’s quarters they found a body in the bed with a big smile on its face. That would be absolutely terrifying, but apparently that’s what naturally happens to corpses when their lips and gums receed.

I wonder how much more energy it took to accomplish that compared to just shooting a rocket. Last I had heard railguns weren’t really feasible because of the absurd amount of energy they would require even with perfect efficiency.

For me, every time it suggests the correct base word, it gets the ending wrong, so I have to type out the whole word anyway. For example, if I want past tense it’ll suggest the present tense of the word.

I agree, but my understanding of it is that developing and announcing a long term plan for a company like that would cause the stock price to dip in the short term. Apparently that would be something shareholders could sue over, so even if some CEO wanted to do the right thing, they couldn’t. It comes down to the greed of people who don’t know and don’t care about the companies they’re invested in and their impacts on the world. They just want that money to come in every month.

That’s a much taller order than you make it sound. It’d probably be easier to figure out fusion.

Fusion is the first step to a post scarcity world. All the new technology, products, agriculture methods, ect. that would be made possible with abundant, clean energy would completely transform the world. I doubt solar and wind could ever provide enough to make those advances.

Everything depends on scarcity. Supply and demand. There has to be unsatisfied demand otherwise prices would be too low for anyone to make any money… it’s a poorly designed system.