BlueSky’s block/mute lists are some the best new tools we have against bots and misinformation. Lemmy could implement those same tools if it becomes an issue. Currently, Lemmy uses the risk of defederation to hold server admins accountable for cracking down on bots and bad actors.

The music mixing capabilities are very solid if you’re looking to use your new laptop as a creative outlet. The default software is solid for journaling and writing as well. You can set up shortcuts to run some custom automations as well. Hope this helps!

I don’t know if it’s winning force so much as it’s being spread by bots and bad actors, although the result is more or less the same. Flooding the zone with their rhetoric makes it look like it’s well supported, which in turns convinces some people that it might not be nonsense.

Of course! Most companies deserve to ghosted imo. It should not take weeks for them to assess if a candidate could be a good fit, and they should be prepared to discuss your starting salary then and there.

Many companies will not pay you what you’re worth initially and still won’t after you negotiate for more, as they don’t really fully commit themselves to a candidate until they’ve proved themselves a little over the first 90 days. If you’re blowing their expectations out of the water, you can usually negotiate for more after the 90 day starting period.

I believe the job market dictates some of it. It depends a lot on your company’s structure here in the USA for if this is the standard or not as well. Plus different states have more protections for hired on workers which could further complicate how picky organizations get.

If it’s a mid to large size employer this becomes more common practice to do multiple interviews, I believe.

There could be time conflicts for organizing an interview, such as the need to hire someone during a busy season vs slow season, or when different key decision makers are out on PTO. The company could also be having a difficult time making a final choice between two or more candidates so they are trying to find anything to help weed some of them out. I think that last one is pretty pathetic though since it is wasting everyone’s time if can’t make that determination from the initial interview.

From my experience it’s usually because management doesn’t want to meet the applicants until person A, B, and C have all individually thought the candidate is worth the upper management team’s time.

Corporations don’t care unless they are regulated to care, but it’s also mixed with some corporations getting lots of flakes for the interviews. A hour wasted of upper management time spent studying up on someone that doesn’t show up for the interview could be a few hundred or a thousand dollars down the drain in “missed productivity”. Still, if they cared about the candidates they would do a team interview, and bring the executive team in right after if they thought the candidate was solid.

“That was the turning point. Since that day, I’ve lived a lie. The lie of living. My name too was a lie. My personal history, a lie. Nothing but lies. I was sick to death of a world that couldn’t be changed. But even in my lies, I refused to give up in despair. But now this incredible power… it’s mine… Well, then…”

I would say it’s a post-jaded reformation era.

Where you’re trying to will positive change for the sake of it. Potential fruitlessness of the effort be damned, I am willing my hope into this world

I believe it’s still possible through a program; you can send iMessage through an Apple laptop or copy and paste from a notes app on your phone or computer into iMessage and fill in the appointment specifics into the template.

They likely have a prompt they copy and paste into a text messaging portal. Although it could very well be an automated service that sends those texts, but it is a manual service receiving and verifying the replies.

Jesus basically came in to say: just follow the commandments, love one another, love your enemy as yourself, don’t be greedy and selfish, and you guys don’t have to keep doing those self-imposed rules the Israelites made themselves do like don’t eat pork or shell fish, etc.

Israelites believed that they were supposed to be purists about everything they do to some degree and saw being a purist as being holy; such as never mixing two different kinds of fabric together or don’t raise your goats with your sheep. Jesus said you don’t need to be a purist about all this unimportant stuff, but be good people.

Then go for the option where all the voting happens at one step based on preference. If you still want a best of two you can have the primary election earlier in the year with a score vote tally, and the two candidates that have the highest scores votes from that process then go into a head to head FPTP style for the general election.

For the record both Alaska and Maine are currently using an Alternative Voting system as well as many countries in Europe. Australia also uses an Alternative Voting system. So it can be done successfully in many countries without issue.

How is it crap and over does this overcomplicate any of it?

The person with the most votes does win under other voting systems I have brought up. What I want is exactly that. I my second example for instance person C has 29 votes compared to person A’s 24 votes, how is that not person C having the most votes and winning?

That’s a great argument in favor of an alternative voting system. Because we both agree that the most votes should win for each representative. Hence the added benefit of having the two rounds of voting since those additional vote preferences are taken into consideration. Through of one these alternative voting systems, we can truly say that the majority of people wanted that person for the job rather.

It’s also a great argument for score voting as well since that is only one round of voting, but you can give a score for each candidate and the candidate with the highest total score wins.

“Just because a person’s favorite choice isn’t the most popular, doesn’t mean the winning candidate is preferred by the majority of voters.”

If we’re being specific, I am acknowledging the why from the very first sentence of my original comment. I needed the details to help elaborate my point though.

To clarify though, I am not trying to cater to everyone, I’m trying to have a dialogue. People that are interested will likely want to read more, those that don’t will skim.

If I was marketing or just cared about short points I wouldn’t be so detailed, but I believe in what I am saying matters beyond just a surface level glance. Sometimes the answers are not short and sweet, sometimes to make change we have to dig in and put in some more effort.

The why is answered in the explanation, how many professors give you the answer upfront before you solve a problem? Usually they want you to be presented with the whole problem and have you work your way to finding the answer. I could spoonfeed the answer, but that lacks nuance. I’m personally tired of things being designed just for short attention spans to give a dopamine hit and then they jump to the next source of dopamine. I feel this view has degraded my own mental facilities after looking for ‘efficiency’ in language for several years now.

If my comment was a post on its own I would have included a hook for why it matters at the start, but if someone is specifically asking me to explain it I’m going to frame it differently.

Why? We’re talking about electing representatives to govern our country, not picking what movie a few people want to go watch. What do you want from a representative? You want them to reflect the consensus of the wider electorate that voted them in rather than just their smaller base. If 66.6% of the voting electorate didn’t vote for someone of a certain political spectrum in a election where that person won by getting 33.4% of the vote, then how are they the most representative option or how do they reflect the views of the majority? My example is a bit extreme, that’s what winner takes all is. The great thing about other systems is, if you personally only want to vote for one candidate, you still can. However, if you wanted to have a backup option in case your favorite lost the first round, then that’s okay too under other systems.

Even something as simple as ordering food with friends makes sense to use an alternative voting system such as approval voting. You and your friends pick all your favorite options, and you’re less likely to be upset at the results since you can show preference. Some options you might hate, some options others may hate, and other options you might all be okay with having.

Yes! Thank you for sharing this, the NPVIC is so huge and we are so close to it actually being possible.

I feel we can make it happen, especially if we continue to get the word out and reach out to our senators and representatives, then we can have momentum for it actually happen as well.

My response to the why is buried a bit tbf. The why is ‘who are we defining as the majority winner’? If we are defining it based on the current FPTP voting system, then yes the person who got the most votes in the one round of voting is the majority winner. If we define it in another system or based on who the total voting population would be happy to have as the winner, then another system would be better more often then not.

I agree there is a simple and more concise way of answering, but I saw it as a teaching moment to go a bit more in depth.

FPTP is terrible for encouraging a two party system over a long enough period of time, because it can incentivize partisan division to secure voter share, and since it often ignores the opinions of the majority of the entire electorate.

The damage of FPTP is further amplified by the House and Senate being capped on the amount of Representatives and Senators for each state. For many states, they just need to secure 51% of the voter base and it becomes winner takes all, especially so with gerrymandering. If there were Alternative Voting systems in all states and if states have had a minimum of five Representatives and five Senators per state scaled up based on population, then our country as a whole would be properly representative to how different populations throughout the country feels. It wouldn’t be just red or blue states anymore, multiple third parties would be able to flourish, and people would have congress-members in office that actually reflect their views.

I just wooshed the joke there lol.

RCV is still solid over FPTP ~>85% of the time, I’m just advocating for these other voting systems. Many people have heard of RCV, but maybe not one of these other systems. There isn’t really a universal favorite, but I feel having a dialogue about the alternatives is something we want to clarify before we commit ourselves to one without acknowledging any potential drawbacks.