glaber

@glaber@lemm.ee

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Slrpnk.net outage⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah! It’s definitely worth adding to my list of migration contenders now that lemm.ee is closing and I have to jump ship

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨LinkedIn lays off 281 workers in California, including many Bay Area engineers⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Anyone here use XING?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Gemini will now automatically summarize your long emails unless you opt out⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  You jest, but I’ve already seen “AI-powered” toothbrushes on shelves. Let’s give even more health data to corporate giants!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Grieve with me⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Digging around the forums it’s really easy to find replacements! FP3 replacement parts are still widely available, and you can find FP2 parts by doing a bit of digging. Remember to contact your local Fairphone Angel too!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK that in 16 States in the USA has banned Ranked-Choice voting, including 5 that has just banned it in 2025, and 6 of those bans happened in 2024.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I think you missed the part where I said that it can happen, but that it’s rare and hard to predict.

  Yea, sorry, my wording wasn’t the clearest. I meant to say that it is actually not that rare, and hoped that the linked source would help support that claim. From the same website:

  We can [assume that] “all votes [are] equally likely except that the probabilities that A,B,C will be middle-ranked of the three in that vote are 30%, 30%, and 40% respectively” where C is the 3rd-party candidate. Then in IRV as #voters→∞, C’s probability of winning is probably exponentially tiny so that Joe Voter is justified in assuming C only a very tiny […] chance of winning. Indeed C only has a tiny chance of merely surviving the first round. However, Joe reasons, if Joe and friends by honestly-ranking C top do manage to make C survive the first round, then that will almost certainly happen only at the cost of eliminating Joe’s second-favorite candidate A. If the A votes then transfer equally to C and B (which in “1-dimensional politics” with C A B arranged along a “line” in that order, seems likely) then C will almost certainly still lose, and will have deprived A of victory in the process.

  The idea then would be that the behavior of mid-ranking the 3rd party candidate would be self-reinforcing in IRV: an assumption of a slight bias that way like we just made (40% versus 30% […]), then leads to it being strategically wise for Joe Voter to do it, leading to a larger bias that way, etc. – positive feedback, self-reinforcing 2-party domination.

  Approval Voting is bad because of the simple fact that it doesn’t let you express any preference.

  I agree and that’s why I support Score Voting over it! The mechanism to express that one candidate is better than another one is to just give them honest scores! And there’s studies proving that’s the reality is, the vast majority of people are at least somewhat honest when filling out a Score ballot

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK that in 16 States in the USA has banned Ranked-Choice voting, including 5 that has just banned it in 2025, and 6 of those bans happened in 2024.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  And when that happens it just defaults to approval, which is still non-monotonic and better than IRV, but it’s been proven anyway that that doesn’t happen and most people are honest (or would learn to be honest after few iterations). IRV is also not devoid of strategy, as it can be better to rank your true favourite lower

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Syncthing Android app discontinued⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Igual te interesa echarle un ojo a postmarketOS. Están haciendo un sistema operativo para teléfonos forkeado directamente de Alpine Linux, en vez de AOSP