This looks impressive for Linux, and I’m glad FLOSS has such an impact! However, I wonder if the numbers are still this good if you consider more supercomputers. Maybe not. Or maybe yes! We’d have to see the evidence.

Sorry if you know this game, but I've met plenty of people who haven't and I've never seen it mentioned online until I searched for it today: Contact!

I should clarify - rather than 'backfire,' exaggeration in Majority Judgment either does nothing or carries a social cost. Here's why:

• If a minority exaggerates votes, the median stays unchanged.
• If everyone exaggerates equally, the same winner emerges, but an artificial high tide of exaggerated grades obscures the real depth of public opinion. This defeats one of MJ's key strengths: the ability to show when all candidates are viewed poorly and therefore create pressure for better options.

Regarding partisan concerns: Yes, MJ is vulnerable if partisan blocks coordinate to exaggerate grades. However, MJ offers two meaningful advantages in a two-party system:

1. Voters can grade third-party candidates highly without 'wasting' their vote, as they can still support their party's candidate.
2. Once again, poor candidates from both parties could receive revealing low grades, encouraging better alternatives.

Of course, you were hinting at the fact that MJ's success in a two-party system depends on fostering a political culture where candid evaluation flows more freely than partisan loyalty. But this is the current that all voting systems must swim against; partisan pressure can steer dolphins' fins at the polling station regardless of the method used.

Either ranked-choice voting or majority judgement.

::: spoiler Here's why

Majority Judgment:

1. Voters grade each candidate on a scale (e.g. Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Reject)
2. The winner is determined by the highest median grade
3. Ties are broken by measuring how many voters gave grades above and below the median

Ranked Choice Voting:

1. Voters rank candidates in order of preference
2. If no candidate has >50%, the lowest-ranked candidate is eliminated
3. Their votes transfer to those voters' next choices
4. Process repeats until someone has majority

Majority Judgment optimizes for:

1. Consensus/Compromise.

By using median grades, it finds candidates who are "acceptable" to a broad swath of voters. A candidate strongly loved by 40% but strongly disliked by 60% will typically lose to someone viewed as "good enough" by most. This pushes politics toward centrist candidates who may not be anyone's perfect choice but whom most find acceptable. The grading system lets voters express "this candidate meets/doesn't meet my minimum standards" rather than just relative preferences

2. Merit-based evaluation

Voters judge each candidate against an absolute standard rather than just comparing them. This can help identify when all candidates are weak (if they all get low grades) or when multiple candidates are strong. It moves away from pure competition between candidates toward evaluation against civic ideals

Ranked Choice Voting optimizes for:

1. Coalition building

By eliminating lowest-ranked candidates and redistributing votes, it rewards candidates who can be many voters' second or third choice. This encourages candidates to appeal beyond their base and build broader coalitions. Unlike MJ, it's more focused on relative preferences than absolute standards

2. Elimination of "spoiler effects"

Voters can support their true first choice without fear of helping their least favorite candidate win. This allows multiple similar candidates to run without splitting their shared base. The system is built around the idea that votes should transfer to ideologically similar alternatives

Both systems optimize for honest voting more than plurality voting, but in different ways:

MJ encourages honest evaluation because exaggerating grades can backfire if too many others don't follow suit RCV encourages honest ranking because putting your true preference first doesn't hurt your later choices

The key philosophical difference is that:

• MJ asks "What level of support does each candidate have across the whole electorate?"
• RCV asks "Which candidate has the strongest coalition of support when similar preferences are consolidated?"

This means MJ tends to favor broad acceptability while RCV tends to favor strong but potentially narrower bases of support that can build winning coalitions. Neither approach is inherently more democratic - they just emphasize different aspects of democratic decision-making.

Thanks for sharing your method.

As to your take on Anki, I think it's fair and accurate. I agree with you in that the learning curve is not in the features or the interface, but as you said: in the pacing. I really hope I can try to space the cards as much as possible, so that a regular practice doesn't become burdensome.

I'm generally skeptical of comments on the internet, so almost every time I have read comments like this one that you're reading right now, I've been like "yeah right". Kinda like how "lol" means "laughing out loud" but when you read it online you don't really expect whoever wrote "lol" to have laughed out loud? Anyway, I was drinking coffee, I read your comment, I snorted in laughter, and now my white shirt is full of coffee.

I guess I'm also kinda mad at myself for laughing so hard at such a silly joke. Regardless, have an updoot 👍

and Bostrom's simulation hypothesis and Pascal's wager, all subject to serious validity threats. All of these thought experiments are unfalsifiable. They can all be explained with different theories. They all rely on circular reasoning. They all anthropomorphize entities that maybe don't resemble humans at all. They all fall for the mind projection fallacy. They all are prey to selection bias, because they cherry-pick scenarios among countless alternatives.

Alright. Given that you're interested in psychology, feel free to check these resources out: https://dnav.international/video-audio-resources/ https://dnav.international/wp-content/uploads/DNA-V-workbook-april-15-2020.pdf

These are introductions to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.

You can also check out the Healthy Minds Program https://hminnovations.org/meditation-app

It sounds like you really care about fairness, in the sense of giving credit to the hard work behind learning. Do you know the phrase “dead metaphor”?

Came here to say this. I would like to know the definition (and its theory behind) to have a conversation about it, but I won’t watch three hours of a video to get the answer (or not!).

You mention not having money for therapy. There is evidence suggesting that therapy like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is effective even if learned through books. What is important is to learn the mental processes that matter.

Here is an approach to therapy that you could try: https://youtu.be/o79_gmO5ppg

Sorry if my questions sound harsh. I genuinely want to know if this could help. How do you feel about reading books? Have you done it before? Do you have a place and time to read without distractions? Would reading from a device be feasible for you?

Totally. The history of intelligence has sadly also been the story of eugenics. Fortunately, there have been process-based theories and contextual theories that have defined intelligence in more humane and useful ways. In this view, IQ tests do not measure an underlying characteristic, but a set of mental skills. Seen this way, intelligence becomes something people can gain with nurturance. If you’re interested, check out Relational Frame Theory.