Wait, Hades, specially part of Greek mythology, is part of Christianity too? And death?

The drawbacks are many and the benefits are few.

Watching foreign films would be a pain, where is this in the world again, what does 19:00 mean for them? More exposition, or you just have to guess based on languag and accent.

I need this work done by our team in XYZ country, what are their working hours? (wow, look at that, still using timezones?)

When you arrive somewhere on holiday, now you have to get a sense of the time there. Or continually be thinking “what’s that in my home time?/what’s that in solar time”, which is why solar time just makes more sense.

People aren’t going to stop thinking in solar time, ever. We’re hard-wired to be awake with the sun. It doesn’t matter what the numbers are, you will associate them with the sun. The question then becomes, would we rather all use roughly the same numbers (timezones, what we currently have), or different numbers (everyone using UTC).

Using UTC solves only 1 problem, you can say verbally to someone across the world, let’s make the meeting 15:00 - but this is already easily solved by using a calendar which converts for you…

There’s a reason we have never used a single non-solar time, it’s just worse and I think there’s a reason these posts always end up on programmer focused places on the internet. Yes, I’m sure their job is annoying, and it would be easier to not have to solve time conversion problems, but the time conversion problems wouldn’t even go away if you forced everyone to use UTC. You’d just start having to do conversions to solar time, or looking up waking hours (which is just timezones)

This is a solved problem.

If God was real / or is real and cared, we would have a perfect 336 day year.

The rest of the world would like a word. Do you really think only you people in the US exist?

Also the equivalent for psi is Pa (=N/m²), usually as kPa or bar (100 kPa).

Most people don’t really understand either to a great extent, and are just familiar with one or the other.

As always though, metric wins because of its interoperability with all the other metric units.

Yeah this bot annoys me. Because it never works ¯_(ツ)_/¯

If it’s because I’m using Firefox mobile, then that’s even more stupid, considering Lemmy harps on about not using a chromium browser.

Problems caught early are much easier to fix than problems caught later. This applies to any project (I’m not a programmer, but an engineer in the traditional sense).

Just “doing it” without coordination and review is a great way to waste a bunch of effort down the line with re-work.

Edit: typo

An email client that can’t open email files? Hmmmmmm.

Is this something to do with the fact it’s routing all emails via Microsoft servers?

I am not a developer

🇳🇵 non-regtanguar flag gang unite!

I’m not saying we need more data though, we have the data, plurality voting overwhelming results in two party systems. This is disprovable and I’m totally happy to change my mind based on the evidence and data.

I’m not straw-manning, you said before with regards to looking up the spoiler effect “I have. it’s not a natural phenomenon, it’s a story that the media tells.”

Apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying there.

Well I suppose for voters like you, then yeah, go vote for your candidate. Just seems odd that you’re saying you don’t think their equally bad, but instead of then making a difference to ensure the less bad option wins, you’d rather make yourself feel good for voting for someone you like best.

May the gods have mercy on us mere vassals who are watching from the sidelines.

Stay safe in these troubled times friend, and thanks for engaging, even if at times it got a bit heated and apologies for offence caused.

I’m not explaining away exceptions, they’re called outliers. In any set of data there will be deviations. When I want to plot some viscosity data and get a few random points on my chart that don’t line up with the rest of the curve, I’m still very confident that my curve is close to being accurate, as long as I have enough data points.

We have enough data points on first past the post elections.

For it to be disproven you would show first past the post elections don’t have to two party systems in the vast majority of cases (which isn’t the reality).

Now, you can try and handwave this away by saying, “oh but that’s what people were TOLD TO BELIEVE, so you can’t prove it”. That’s why we have not just the correlation to rely on, we have maths.

And you can’t (I hope you don’t) really disagree that you either have many candidates, who then win with less than a majority, or two parties, which then necessarily means the third smaller candidates can’t win, and so people then vote for one of the larger parties so their vote counts. That’s the binary state of affairs, there are no other options, the reality of maths doesn’t allow for anything else, the votes add up to 100% ¯_(ツ)_/¯

For sure, I wouldn’t like voting for either, also.

Just that if they’re not equal, then that means you have a preference. And I hope you will act on that preference and make a difference, instead or just making yourself feel good that you’ve voted for the candidate you liked best.

You’ve been robbed of that choice by your voting system.

Okay, the test would be that we have first past the post (single winner elections, like for president, or local electorates with single candidates elected, not proportional voting, which is better), produce elections with a spread of votes across many candidates, and don’t consistently trend towards two.

This is definitely testable and disprovable, it’s just that the outcome is overwhelmingly the case I have described, the spoiler effect leading to two dominant parties. There may be outliers and times where a third candidate does win, but these are the overwhelmingly rare exceptions.

Alrighty, then I suppose you just aren’t voting. Which is your choice, just as long as you’re clear on that.

Your candidate is not going to win, and I think you know that.

And if you think these choices are equally as bad, that’s a whole different topic that let’s not get in to.

Lets just focus on this particular election then.

Do you think anyone other than Biden or Trump will win? If you do, then your choice is clear, and as much as you question the existence of the spoiler effect (which is not being spread much by the media in the US, it’s being spread by detractors of the current voting system), it doesn’t really matter. People will vote towards those two candidates (hope we can agree that this is the likely outcome).

If that’s the case, voting for a third candidate is as good as not voting because if your candidate doesn’t win, and you COULD have voted for your next choice (why ranked voting is so much better, and it’s the voting system letting you down), then the candidate you most don’t want (assuming 3 candidates) has a better chance of winning (since you didn’t vote for your second choice).

You say this isn’t provable because it’s about people’s beliefs and it can’t be tested, but sorry, elections are about human choices, beliefs are at play. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that democracies with ranked choice voting have more first preference votes to smaller parties, and that it’s overwhelmingly so.

You can’t really escape the fact that even if people just voted for their favourite candidate in first past the post, people would win with less than 50% of the vote (unless you’re saying that the votes don’t add up to 100% then I dunno what to say)

Yeah we have many separate threads now. Apologies for this.

Sorry, that’s my bad. Your initial response was quite frustrating.

Emotions are high because this election affects people around the world, and hearing that you don’t care enough to make a difference, is not very pleasant.

I apologise.

The evidence is all of the first past the post systems that trend toward two dominant parties. There are 1000s of example elections, and the elections which don’t conform to this are just as bad, because the winner will win with even FEWER votes than 50%. If you have 5 candidates and people are voting fairly evenly between them, you can win with just over 20% of the vote. I hope you can believe that, that’s just the mathematical reality (that I’m really hoping we don’t have to debate over, it’s a fairly simple mathematical problem).

The myth is that what you have can actually provide voters with a meaningful choice. That’s the media narrative, that first past the post is meaningful and gives the president a mandate because people voted for them, but it most certainly doesn’t.

Okay 👍 Please do explain your whacky logic though. I came to the conclusion you’re a troll because you’re not really engaging by explaining your position beyond: “I don’t wanna, it’s a lie! The media is lying!!”

Go learn maths, go understand the mechanism behind the spoiler effect. Go look at the literal mountains of examples of it in play. Unless you think it’s just some massive coincidence that every first-past-the-post system trends towards two parties.

I’m very keen and willing hear to any actual logic you bring to the table to justify your belief.

🤦‍♂️ It’s a “law” in the mathematical/scientific sense. It is a model that explains something.

You’re just spouting smart sounding words without actually proving anything.

Please, please, do explain how the spoiler effect is wrong.

Tell me how when you have first past the post and a two party system, voting for a third candidate who won’t win isn’t just making it more likely the candidate you’d like less to win.

Please, would love to hear you well reasoned and sound argument.