Yeah. It isn’t about cheating, fairness, who got in a lane first. Isn’t territory to defend. We don’t have to enforce rules on each other. The traffic planners and road crews went through a bit of effort with like signs and cones and shit to tell us where they want us to merge. Zippering helps everyone go faster. Kinda why the planners want us to do it.

I think you might be letting the dead off too easy just using the current population. You think we all just fell out of a coconut tree?

Simple, orderly zippering when a lane actually ends is the way. Wasting that useful pavement to create slower traffic and more traffic jam is insane and should be ticketed.

I presented a position on the topic. You ignored it in favor of discussing my comment’s tone.

As for the concept, I considered it decades ago. The math was the same then as now, and time has only added those decades of supporting evidence.

Ridicule of the ridiculous is warranted. And characterizing ignoring the reality of political systems as stomping one’s foot is the mildest of ridicule. It isn’t bullying. If you weren’t dismissing the facts in surewhynotlem’s comment, then I’m glad you accept them.

Everyone should just ignore their actual incentives. Wow. What a wonderful solution to collective action problems; why didn’t anyone ever think of that before? Come on. I don’t believe you are that stupid.

They gave facts and you dismiss them with a label because of a little ridicule? Your ending suggestion doesn’t even do the job… we can grant you the impossible, sure all those people vote third party. Result, still a loss, and their least preferred major party wins. Whoops, all those voters we granted you picked different third parties. Because as little as they barely agreed on preferring one of the major parties, they agree on a ranking of the “third parties” even less. If you ask for us to grant the impossible, at least make it one that would work.

This is currently a multi-tiered 170,000,000 people system we are discussing. History and mathematics are against simplistic appeals for quick changes. Propose childish thinking, and it is little wonder you get ridiculed as acting childish.

Don’t know about him, but the example I try to plant in people’s minds is that early in his presidency, he wanted money for a wall, democrats wanted “dreamers” to get citizenship (and every state has infrastructure projects they want). Seemed like great deal making ground to me. I was prepared at the time to be wrong about him and waited to see anything come out along the lines of a bargain. But he proved unable to do it.

Maybe try Antarctica as an example? There are a few people there, and it seems quite possible to settle without conflict (assuming some treaty alterations). Some atoll no one uses all the time? Maybe a lost cause, bloodfart doesn’t seem all that interested in the good faith distinction you are pointing out.

I see your point though; the distinction, to me, motivates using less neutrally connoted wording. Something like “invaders” or “raiders”. Nice and clear to everyone.

B seems rather intent on making sure the neutral word is seen as a morally charged one. Seems like making one hard project into two projects and thus just increasing the difficulty to me.

Do you have a source on the ‘no scope’ detail?

I’ve heard that “no scope” detail elsewhere too. But would love to confirm it or have it disproven.

It is the detail that I keep coming back to that would indicate something about his state of mind, lack of rationality, lack of time, something.

Obama.

I was too young to vote at the time, but the charts and graphs thing was rad.

If their art doesn’t make enough money then it’s clearly not in enough demand.

Unless you burden the word ‘enough’ with far too much work in that sentence, then that implication doesn’t necessarily follow. It is possible for something to be in great demand by those without money to spend. Furthermore, it is possible for there to be issues with the logistics between the source and the demand (e.g. demand is very physically distributed, or temporally limited and/or sporadic).

Money is a very particular way of empowering and aggregating only some demand. It ties the power of demand to history and not moral or egalitarian considerations for one.

Technology Connections has covered this (mis)conception.

Ditto.

Canceling cable used to be, at the very least, a long, phone call that alternated between stretches of hold music dulling the senses and combative sales technique verbal jousting. Canceling a streaming service… I don’t think that has ever taken me more than four minutes of finding a webpage and clicking. The collective consciousness is in danger of forgetting/underplaying just how far we have come on this.

If pirating ever takes less than four minutes every other month, I guess it will have reached convenience parity. But it certainly wasn’t that back when I was in that game. And I really, really doubt it is now.

Right on.

But I think people have to get used to using it for smaller, less important things first .“What restaurant should we go to?” And such like. Otherwise the entrenched interests it would oust have easy FUD ammo against it.

For that smaller stuff the mechanics of the system bog people down, so simple voting’s easy count wins in the calories/decision evaluation. Maybe some apps that make it easy to do would be helpful. Or some popular board games using it as a mechanic. Discussion forum comment rankings based on it?

I don’t know. Seems pretty cowardly to me. So does asking for delayed trial dates.

(continuing the headline)… And Produce Some Sweet Album Cover Art