Good point; nothing quite says nuance like 'Talladega Nights'... it's not exactly 'Step Brothers' when it comes to Family Studies analysis. But then, it's hard to capture lightning in a bottle twice.
If I pull back on the snark a tiny bit... I guess that's my point: Step Brothers is Hollywood making fun of itself.. they are the DINKs with 40-yo failures-to-launch who's denouement *would* be at the Catalina Wine Mixer... we are they and we love them.
Is he? Serious question... I've seen the movie, but I'm definitely *not* in the demographic for whom Ricky Bobby would be a hero. I'm honestly on the fence whether he's Satire (done with love) or Sarcasm (done with contempt).
A few years ago... actually maybe 5-7 I was in Raleigh, NC at a large multi-national and they had just that year switched to 'zone' office space.
Basically no-one (well, no one below a certain level) had an office, a desk, or even a seat. Everyone was assigned a Zone with their team (and maybe relevant other teams, maybe) with the expectation that they took their laptop with them every night. Based on an analysis they had done (someone somewhere) they didn't have to have a space for everyone on the team because some % of workers aren't at the office each day.
So, the idea was to have an 'Office' where a % less than 100% would show up each day and find a new place to work. The folks we were meeting with said it mostly worked... but there was a massive shortage of meeting spaces where you could talk in private because people were booking those spaces for hours on end.
They explained this as we were heading outside for our meeting because there was no where to meet.
I expect this will be iterated upon heavily in the coming months/years. You won't have to come in every day... and when you do you won't have a place to go specifically just an area you head to like you're working remote from your real office at home. The only question to me is whether that will be on a weird 2-on-2-off schedule or some sort of algorithmic 3-2-3 pattern that staggers all the team members.
I haven't returned to my super-sexy-traveling-sales-rep lifestyle yet... but the couple of trips my Wife and I have taken post-Vax sequester have been fine. Not so much travel wasteland as more like European Travel... a lot fewer people lying to me that it was 'their pleasure' to give me a warm bottled water... but baseline accommodations with indifferent service. I kinda prefer it.
Lady Marchmaine and the three youngest are in MN visiting grandma and cousins; coincidentally(?) the three oldest decided to come home this weekend so we're getting takeout every night like we're all 20-somethings. Very few dishes need doing, but we're critically short of utensils... just as I remember in college/grad school. Purely a battle of wills as to who will wash all the forks vs. I can eat with this ice-cream scoop just fine thankyouverymuch.
He claims to have built a dead-man switch to release incriminating evidence of 'stuff' if he was killed... I doubt he had the stuff, and I doubt he had a dead-man switch, and I doubt anyone really powerful cared enough to have him killed. The pattern of posting these things seems consistent with a general concept of MaAfee nonsense.
If a cache of incriminating stuff does in fact emerge, however, I'd have to consider that anew.
I think Epstein killed himself, but I also suspect there's more to his suicide than suicide simpliciter. There *is* a dead-man cache, there are people who very much didn't want him to go to trial, and there is a vast fortune that is going somewhere - quite possibly along pre-arranged lines ... assuming he had the good sense to remove himself properly. His may have been an assisted suicide.
Other than baseline investigation of why someone in custody died, I'm not expecting anything unusual from McAfee; I do think there are many things that ought to be investigated (still) regarding Epstein.
Yeah, there's something a little odd about ranking every candidate... like I wouldn't even want to put a '13' beside some candidates.
Maybe a way to ease into it might be to require 50% + 1 to win, with a RCV of 3 candidates... if no candidate gains 50% in RCV-3... then actual Run-off between #1 and #2.
RCV doesn't take long in any automated system; it takes a long time in systems that don't want to be automated, though.
I guess the thing about proportionality is two-fold: If we build it to be proportionally accurate on the year ending in 0, what happens
1. If the districts change demographically over 9-yrs to deliver non-proportional results. (e.g. Narrow Blue district flips red which doesn't reflect true proportionality)
2. Or conversely if the districts deliver non-proportional results because the demographics changed un-evenly but at very accelerated rates in one or two districts... (e.g. Blue district goes Double-Dog-Blue by vote totals, changing the overall state proportionality, but not the seat count).
The point here is that if we agree that the only (or most primary thing) is pure proportionality we're going to run into issues that aren't mitigated by other things like, say, COI or Compactness, or Competitiveness.
I think there's maybe a hybrid way out where you have COI/Boundaries, calibrate for some competitiveness, then maybe allocate some 'at large' seats to balance proportionality.
But that doesn't work for any state with fewer than, say, 10 seats.
But true proportionality could only be 100% at large.
Sure. One vote for "Proportionally Partisan" that's reasonable.
What about other 'goods' like compactness, county borders, COI/majority minority districts? Also, do we have no interest at all in maximizing competitiveness?
But, to be truly Proportionally Partisan, we'd have to allocate the districts *after* the election or we wouldn't know what the partisan proportionality *should* be, only what it was the last time the districts were drawn... which might create unbalanced districts over the usual 10-yr period.
Also... can you tell me how sites are telling me I've 'used up my free articles' when I open them in a non-standard browser that I keep perfectly pristine with absolutely no ID information? Is it IP-Address? Mac address? I'm kinda baffled because it just started happening.
I've shifted my political discussions with all the Anti-Trump republicans around me to just this... it is in 'our' interest to change the voting regime (at the non-Constitutional level) so that we can exert proportional influence in areas we care about and have the freedom signal support that runs contrary to either of the two parties.
I think you could augment your position by pointing out that even if your 2nd or 3rd choice is elected in Election #1... the actual # of votes and proportional support would influence Election #2 and potentially create some fluidity across the party lines as coalitions can shop their positions to candidates looking to either build a bigger influence coalition for Election #3 or to influence policy direction in Election #2.
Which is to say... the very first election after RCV will probably follow fairly predictable lines, but it might change the iterative aspect over time. Depending upon actual voting preferences, of course... not by magic.
I also support #1 on redistricting... and note some of my observations/concerns above.
If we get RCV, I would not support #3 (Jungle Primaries) as I want no primaries and actual parties to select their candidates, and #3 would be redundant or counter productive if you have RCV.
I agree with the principle that the foxes should not guard the hen house.
But or should I say 'And' settling upon a framework/algorithm won't be as easy as we think... and honestly I'm skeptical that we won't come up with 50 different models based on, 'well you have to understand...'
Which is a slightly more agnostic way to say: who's really 'independent' if we can't agree on a universal district theory that's applied without regard to 'independent' configurators changing the 'universal district theory' for ... reasons.
I'm not convinced (yet) that there's anything meaningful about the employment situation that won't revert back to the mean in sufficient time.
So, my contrarian take is that if it *were* a meaningful inflextion point, it would behoove us to move past wages (which will fall) and into equity... keep wages where they are going to fall back to, but the truly innovative and bigger change would be to incent workers with fractional ownership of companies.
Yes, this is my hobby horse, and I'll keep flogging it until we get it.
The initial spike has to do with the Chris Wallace question at the Presidential debate where the "Vought Memo(s)" ending a certain sort of Diversity Training was brought up. Original memo was Sept 4 (iirc) and this one clarifies the original.
The nicest way to put it might be that there are people attempting to make some money by over-extending what the theories suggest/support... but the 'thing' is happening and there are more examples than people can count. This isn't Rufo.
This is one of those things where taking the "L" on the Bailey would be smarter than trying to suggest that someone else is making your team make errors they are making.
Rufo, if anything, is capitalizing on the double-down. Don't double down.
On “Hollywood: Time to Use Your Superpower for Good Again”
Good point; nothing quite says nuance like 'Talladega Nights'... it's not exactly 'Step Brothers' when it comes to Family Studies analysis. But then, it's hard to capture lightning in a bottle twice.
If I pull back on the snark a tiny bit... I guess that's my point: Step Brothers is Hollywood making fun of itself.. they are the DINKs with 40-yo failures-to-launch who's denouement *would* be at the Catalina Wine Mixer... we are they and we love them.
Ricky Bobby? Still not sure.
"
Inevitable. Proves the profound lack of confidence that studios have in their ability to create content; Decadence in Douthatian terms.
"
Well, if my team can pray to His Sacred Heart... hard to see how baby Jesus isn't a legitimate intercessor.
Selling a spot for PowerAid in each grace might push some boundaries, though... but probably accrues to personal sin rather than actual heresy.
But I may be biased since 'Cuddly and Omnipotent' was my high school band name.
"
"Ricky Bobby was the hero"
Is he? Serious question... I've seen the movie, but I'm definitely *not* in the demographic for whom Ricky Bobby would be a hero. I'm honestly on the fence whether he's Satire (done with love) or Sarcasm (done with contempt).
I could see it either way.
"
And then there's Ricky Bobby's Baby Jesus grace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYiWydDyMIE
"
Well, if it worked in my 20s... wait, it never worked in my 20s.
On “Post-Pandemic Wasteland”
A few years ago... actually maybe 5-7 I was in Raleigh, NC at a large multi-national and they had just that year switched to 'zone' office space.
Basically no-one (well, no one below a certain level) had an office, a desk, or even a seat. Everyone was assigned a Zone with their team (and maybe relevant other teams, maybe) with the expectation that they took their laptop with them every night. Based on an analysis they had done (someone somewhere) they didn't have to have a space for everyone on the team because some % of workers aren't at the office each day.
So, the idea was to have an 'Office' where a % less than 100% would show up each day and find a new place to work. The folks we were meeting with said it mostly worked... but there was a massive shortage of meeting spaces where you could talk in private because people were booking those spaces for hours on end.
They explained this as we were heading outside for our meeting because there was no where to meet.
I expect this will be iterated upon heavily in the coming months/years. You won't have to come in every day... and when you do you won't have a place to go specifically just an area you head to like you're working remote from your real office at home. The only question to me is whether that will be on a weird 2-on-2-off schedule or some sort of algorithmic 3-2-3 pattern that staggers all the team members.
"
I haven't returned to my super-sexy-traveling-sales-rep lifestyle yet... but the couple of trips my Wife and I have taken post-Vax sequester have been fine. Not so much travel wasteland as more like European Travel... a lot fewer people lying to me that it was 'their pleasure' to give me a warm bottled water... but baseline accommodations with indifferent service. I kinda prefer it.
On “Hollywood: Time to Use Your Superpower for Good Again”
After Guns we could do Sex.
On “Weekend Plans Post: The Barometer”
Lady Marchmaine and the three youngest are in MN visiting grandma and cousins; coincidentally(?) the three oldest decided to come home this weekend so we're getting takeout every night like we're all 20-somethings. Very few dishes need doing, but we're critically short of utensils... just as I remember in college/grad school. Purely a battle of wills as to who will wash all the forks vs. I can eat with this ice-cream scoop just fine thankyouverymuch.
On “John McAfee Found Dead In Prison Cell of an Apparent Suicide”
I don't think McAfee was murdered.
He claims to have built a dead-man switch to release incriminating evidence of 'stuff' if he was killed... I doubt he had the stuff, and I doubt he had a dead-man switch, and I doubt anyone really powerful cared enough to have him killed. The pattern of posting these things seems consistent with a general concept of MaAfee nonsense.
If a cache of incriminating stuff does in fact emerge, however, I'd have to consider that anew.
I think Epstein killed himself, but I also suspect there's more to his suicide than suicide simpliciter. There *is* a dead-man cache, there are people who very much didn't want him to go to trial, and there is a vast fortune that is going somewhere - quite possibly along pre-arranged lines ... assuming he had the good sense to remove himself properly. His may have been an assisted suicide.
Other than baseline investigation of why someone in custody died, I'm not expecting anything unusual from McAfee; I do think there are many things that ought to be investigated (still) regarding Epstein.
On “Power to the People: Three Election Changes to Pull Us Together”
Yeah, there's something a little odd about ranking every candidate... like I wouldn't even want to put a '13' beside some candidates.
Maybe a way to ease into it might be to require 50% + 1 to win, with a RCV of 3 candidates... if no candidate gains 50% in RCV-3... then actual Run-off between #1 and #2.
RCV doesn't take long in any automated system; it takes a long time in systems that don't want to be automated, though.
"
NO MORE COUNTIES.
I guess the thing about proportionality is two-fold: If we build it to be proportionally accurate on the year ending in 0, what happens
1. If the districts change demographically over 9-yrs to deliver non-proportional results. (e.g. Narrow Blue district flips red which doesn't reflect true proportionality)
2. Or conversely if the districts deliver non-proportional results because the demographics changed un-evenly but at very accelerated rates in one or two districts... (e.g. Blue district goes Double-Dog-Blue by vote totals, changing the overall state proportionality, but not the seat count).
The point here is that if we agree that the only (or most primary thing) is pure proportionality we're going to run into issues that aren't mitigated by other things like, say, COI or Compactness, or Competitiveness.
I think there's maybe a hybrid way out where you have COI/Boundaries, calibrate for some competitiveness, then maybe allocate some 'at large' seats to balance proportionality.
But that doesn't work for any state with fewer than, say, 10 seats.
But true proportionality could only be 100% at large.
"
Bastards. This wouldn't happen if we coded for aesthetics.
"
Sure. One vote for "Proportionally Partisan" that's reasonable.
What about other 'goods' like compactness, county borders, COI/majority minority districts? Also, do we have no interest at all in maximizing competitiveness?
But, to be truly Proportionally Partisan, we'd have to allocate the districts *after* the election or we wouldn't know what the partisan proportionality *should* be, only what it was the last time the districts were drawn... which might create unbalanced districts over the usual 10-yr period.
"
Yes, but mine is aesthetically better.
"
Also... can you tell me how sites are telling me I've 'used up my free articles' when I open them in a non-standard browser that I keep perfectly pristine with absolutely no ID information? Is it IP-Address? Mac address? I'm kinda baffled because it just started happening.
"
much obliged... what did I do wrong this time?
"
Regarding #2 on RCV:
I've shifted my political discussions with all the Anti-Trump republicans around me to just this... it is in 'our' interest to change the voting regime (at the non-Constitutional level) so that we can exert proportional influence in areas we care about and have the freedom signal support that runs contrary to either of the two parties.
I think you could augment your position by pointing out that even if your 2nd or 3rd choice is elected in Election #1... the actual # of votes and proportional support would influence Election #2 and potentially create some fluidity across the party lines as coalitions can shop their positions to candidates looking to either build a bigger influence coalition for Election #3 or to influence policy direction in Election #2.
Which is to say... the very first election after RCV will probably follow fairly predictable lines, but it might change the iterative aspect over time. Depending upon actual voting preferences, of course... not by magic.
I also support #1 on redistricting... and note some of my observations/concerns above.
If we get RCV, I would not support #3 (Jungle Primaries) as I want no primaries and actual parties to select their candidates, and #3 would be redundant or counter productive if you have RCV.
"
I agree with the principle that the foxes should not guard the hen house.
But or should I say 'And' settling upon a framework/algorithm won't be as easy as we think... and honestly I'm skeptical that we won't come up with 50 different models based on, 'well you have to understand...'
Which is a slightly more agnostic way to say: who's really 'independent' if we can't agree on a universal district theory that's applied without regard to 'independent' configurators changing the 'universal district theory' for ... reasons.
At this point I usually post the interactive 538 Redistricting tool
On “Workers Leaving Retail Jobs in Record Numbers”
Tik Tok?
My Critical Economic Theory is that it isn't enough to be a non-Exploiter, you have to be an Anti-Exploiter and I'm starting a movement.
"
I'm not convinced (yet) that there's anything meaningful about the employment situation that won't revert back to the mean in sufficient time.
So, my contrarian take is that if it *were* a meaningful inflextion point, it would behoove us to move past wages (which will fall) and into equity... keep wages where they are going to fall back to, but the truly innovative and bigger change would be to incent workers with fractional ownership of companies.
Yes, this is my hobby horse, and I'll keep flogging it until we get it.
On “Of Mottes, and Baileys, and Critical Race Theory”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/omb-sept-28-memo-on-diversity-training/ac10c54a-8912-4c5e-b017-fc46ec06aadf/
"
No, Rufo is a lagging indicator.
The initial spike has to do with the Chris Wallace question at the Presidential debate where the "Vought Memo(s)" ending a certain sort of Diversity Training was brought up. Original memo was Sept 4 (iirc) and this one clarifies the original.
The nicest way to put it might be that there are people attempting to make some money by over-extending what the theories suggest/support... but the 'thing' is happening and there are more examples than people can count. This isn't Rufo.
This is one of those things where taking the "L" on the Bailey would be smarter than trying to suggest that someone else is making your team make errors they are making.
Rufo, if anything, is capitalizing on the double-down. Don't double down.
On “The Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax Would be a Tax from Hell”
If we want to, Sure.
That's just an engineering / reporting question based on usage.
Do we want to? Not sure.
p.s. I'm seriously looking at the new F150 for just that reason... well, not the hypothetical fee avoidance reason... the power outage back-up reason.