More like “hand-crafted” or “rustic” for a similar positive vibe.

I think we have a different understanding of ranked choice.

In your example, you have 3 candidates, and candidate 3 isn’t very popular. He isn’t many people’s first choice. At the end of round 1, candidate 1 has 45% of the first choice votes, candidate 2 has 46% of the first choice votes, and candidate 3 has 9% of the first choice votes. Candidate 3 is then eliminated, and those who voted for him have their votes go to their second choice candidate. That should leave either candidate 1 or 2 winning. The only way he wins is if he had more first choice votes than one of the other candidates.

If someone who is everyone’s second choice but no one’s first choice wins, that sounds like approval voting or something similar, not ranked choice.

Edit: Looking at the referenced election, it looks like he was the most popular among the people who didn’t want the 2 popular candidates. The first round was 8 candidates and a simple ballot. The second round was a runoff election with the 3 most popular candidates and a ranked choice ballot. He won the first round of that. No one had 50%, so instant runoff, but he also won the second round of that.

To avoid that situation, you would have had to change the run-off rules to only allow the 2 top people instead of the 3 top people. But it still was an in person run off that gave you the result you dislike.

You know the alternate name for ranked choice? Instant runoff.

In your opinion, why does making everyone come out a second time produce better results?

And more expensive than flying a good chunk of the time!

The thing is, placebos can actually be pretty effective. Hell, they’re effective even if you know they’re a placebo. And the more elaborate and similar to what you think would be involved in curing you, the more effective. So people going to chiropractors might actually be getting real results even if the things they’re doing are junk.

You’re the one who set that as the bar.

The idea behind this community should be that you think “wait, really? Is that serious or satire?”

I don’t think anyone at this point would even do a double take to check “is this from a satire news source?” if they happened to see it shared in a context that makes the source not immediately known (e.g. on lemmy). At this point, The Onion headlines involving Trump tend to veer into total ridiculousness (Trump killing Cohen with a pen, bribing people with pb&j, etc). The only way you can do subtlety involving him is things that are totally out of character, like anything with self awareness or acknowledgement of rigging things in his favor.

Did you really wonder if the first was satire? It is 0% surprising when Trump accuses others of what he does.

But if you truly believe in the religion, what does that change?

Like I can absolutely abhor some of the things people have done in the name of medicine and often are still doing, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop going to doctors when I’m sick. Because I fundamentally believe in medical science and that I’m more likely to die without them. If you are raised catholic, there’s a good chance you fundamentally believe your eternal life is better if you continue to follow the religion. Sure, I probably have more proof, but their belief is just as strong.

Primary to tertiary? Does that mean it includes what college students through grad school spend themselves? Because that would shift perception of this a lot.

Edit: The original data does include public funding and private funding:

Every year, governments, private companies, students and their families make decisions about the financial resources invested in education.

They do break it out, but I can’t tell if the graphic is using the total or just the public funding.

So this graphic might just be: Americans spend a stupid amount on college.

“Puppy on the way home from being trained to hunt birds, kills birds.”

Well, you can start from the fact that language is a living, changing thing. The only real rules of the language are descriptions of how people are using the language. Even after they put rules to it, those rules have had to evolve as speakers change how they use English. It’s not like we still use Shakespearean English as the standard of correctness anymore.

So, the set of rules that are written is just a description of how some people are using the language at the time. Can you take a guess which people’s use these rules are based on? You can bet it isn’t going to be the black people. And then these people can use these rules, which are just a description of how they use English, to say black people are wrong.

No one uses literally to mean figuratively. They use it to emphasize regardless of if what they’re emphasizing includes figurative language. Nearly every word that means something similar to “in actual fact” undergoes this semantic drift (actually, really, etc).

“She literally exploded at me.” is similar in meaning to “She totally exploded at me.” Not so much to “She figuratively exploded at me.”

That’s good. The article linked to by the graveyard made it seem like they didn’t.

Pixel Pass

Killed 8 months ago, Pixel Pass was a program that allowed users to pay a monthly charge for their Pixel phone and upgrade immediately after two years. It was almost 2 years old.

Well, that seems particularly scummy.

That other countries do it doesn’t make it not horrifying. Almost all your examples are horrifying.

Only the last one isn’t. Being held pending trial if you threaten to flee the country? That makes sense.

Depends on the person and the context. I know some trans folks who are happy to still have their kids call them mom but would like to be referred to as their father/parent and vice versa in any other context and some who really want to have their kids now call them dad.

Mean, median, and mode are measures of central tendency aka average. It’s usually context that indicates which measure we are using when we say average. A lot of the time, when speaking of the average person, we’re using the median or mode rather than the mean.

How many fingers does your average person have?

I think it might just be a line of how they used the random object could have reasonably resulted in death. So if you smack someone in the face with a fluffy pillow, it’s not a deadly weapon. If you try to smother them with it, it is.

It’s more sitting up. You’re going from laying to sitting with legs mostly parallel to the floor. Rather than from standing to sitting with calves mostly perpendicular to the floor.