That’s why I asked. Shorting would involve betting the bubble will pop in a specific time frame and has no upper end to what I could lose if the bubble doesn’t pop in time. I was asking if there is any other way to bet against them that I didn’t know about. Something without that time frame and/or lower risk.
Yea, that’s what I figured.
I’m not a big market speculator guy. Does anyone know if there is a way to bet against AI, to make money when the AI bubble pops? Not shorting.
I’m not a big market speculator guy. Does anyone know if there is a way to bet against AI, to make money when the AI bubble pops? Not shorting.
Batman questions anyone and anything and has a plan for any eventuality, PARTICULARY those that pose a global scale threat. It’s nothing personal, it’s just reasonable precaution. That’s basically his true superpower. He also does trust Superman as a person, as a colleague and friend. I don’t think he ever considers there to be a true risk that Superman turns on humanity of his own will. However, Superman is susceptible to mind control, to magic, to unpredictable forms of kryptonite. And he is not the only living Kryptonian in existence either. It would be stupid not to plan for such threats.
Lex depending on the version, may or may not think that Superman actually poses a willful threat to humanity. But even if he also trusts that Superman is what he appears to be, a selfless hero that only wants to help people, he probably hates that idea even more. He usually doesn’t distrust Superman’s intent. He hates what it says about and does to human-kind, and by extension, himself. He things depending on an alien demigod will make humanity weak and complacent. He thinks that Superman holds the Earth back from reaching their potential. That it permanently neuters them from become Supermen themselves. So he makes it his mission to ruin Superman however he can. If he can kill him, good. Not a problem anymore. If he can publically discredit him, sow distrust across the globe, that’s good too, maybe better. People who distrust him won’t depend on him and may, in fact, fear him. As a result they are more likely to better themselves, their technology, their science, to rival and fight back against Superman.
TL:DR: Batman takes precautions. Lex hates and attempts to kill or sabotage. They’re not the same.
Stuff removed, stuff added, everything pulled tight. It’s like taxidermy but for still alive vanity-obsessed women, and it often looks like it too.
Districts each get a seat. That is the part you are not getting. That is what gerrymandering manipulates. You seem to think that the districts are voting blocks with equal say (1 vote each) in an election of a single seat (thus why you think Blue wins it all) but that is NOT how districting and gerrymandering works in the US (where the word comes from and the only place it is really used, btw). I dont know why you are quoting definitions at me like I dont understand the concept.
I am not conflating anything. I am deliberately ignoring anything not in the info-graphic that presumably wants to teach us something.
You specifically brought up that other people are saying that there are better systems, which is exactly what I was responding to and saying you were conflating with the “perfect” term used in the info graphic. So no, this is bull.
You are the one conflating the abstract presentation on this graphic with some specific real-life situation.
The abstract presentation in the graphic is a hypothetical that EXPLAINS the real-life situation. Gerrymandering is not a concept in a vacuum. It is a thing that happens and show a simplified version of it here demonstrates how manipulative it is in a digestible way. That is the point. It’s not a mathematical or logical axiom that exists purely in and of itself. It is a pretend situation meant to parallel a real life one and demonstrate a form of political manipulation.
The graphic literally illustrates that one of two teams “wins”. In the “perfect” case that is blue.
They win majority of the district. Not all of the seats. I don’t know why you’re are being so obtuse about this. It’s pretty apparent to everyone else. And it is exactly how districts in real life work
That is an assumption you are making based on some real world system that is not depicted here.
Yes, becuase the purpose of this info graphic is to show how Gerrymandering works in real life. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with taking individual seats. Ever. Period. It is about taking outweighed control of a multi-seat body. That is the ENTIRE point of gerrymandering, a subject that is not obscure in the slightest.
I don’t criticize the result. I just don’t think it’s perfect.
What then would be the “perfect” result between only two parties running, and 60% support going to the blue party? Whether for 1 seat or for 5 as IS SHOWN in this graphic?
People here keep telling me the system is bad but it’s the best we have.
If that is your definition of perfect that I suppose we just have a vastly different understanding of perfection.
I most certianly did not say that this is the best system we could have, but you confusion is because you are conflating vastly different things. When people are talking about different voting systems that would be better, that assumes that there is more than 2 choices in the matter. If there are only two, such as is in this example, the voting system resolves to being identical to First Past The Post, so it doesnt matter, FOR THIS ONE EXAMPLE. In real life, things are not that simple, but that doesnt matter when we are talking about a simplified hypothetical like this. That is the point.
Your example is literally what is being illustrated. There is some disconnect you are suffering. There isn’t only one seat they are competing for. There are 5 districts with 5 seats and depending on how you divide the districts, fairly or intentionally gerrymandered, you can get a fair outcome or outcomes that heavily favor one party. Even if they WERE competing for one seat, then blue winning that seat would still be the correct outcome in this case, so even if your misunderstanding the hypothetical were accurate, I dont get why you have a problem with the end result.
Ok, so there is an election system like the one I criticized in the US, just not in every state.
Would you then say, that this is better than “winner takes all” and that “blue wins” is not perfect?
No… because in the example, it was NOT winner take all. Blue won the majority of districts. Red won the other districts. Nobody took all. I feel like you are trying really hard to misunderstand a VERY simple hypothetical example. Yes, winner take all states for electors is bullshit, but that is NOT what is happening in the example, for the love of god!
As I said elsewhere, if there is only two parties/candidates running for each of these seats and the districts are divided this way then there is no functional difference between Ranked Choice, Approval, Proportional, or First Past The Post. The results would be 100% identical in any of those systems. In this specific situation, the result is “perfect”, as it says. Under different circumstances, it would be less than perfect, but that is not how hypothetical work, my guy.
What do you think “districts” means? Each district gets represention for the whole body, whatever body that may be. If you need that explained to you, okay, but don’t then lecture others on minutae of semantics when you arent familiar with what the word “district” entails.
And the U.S. President is not elected like this, no. There is no districting involved in US Presidential elections, at least not currently and not directly. It is far stupider than that, unfortunately. Each state has so many districts on the federal level based on population of the whole state (minimum 1), and each district gets a federal representative in the US House of Representatives wing of congress. Each state also gets 2 and only 2 Senate seats regardless of population in that wing of congress. The Presidency is actually determined by the votes of Electors in the Electoral College. Each state gets as many Electors as they have seats in both the Senate and House, and it has nothing to do with how the districts in that state are subdivided or what party their Representatives are from.
Now, each state gets to determine for itself how they run their elections, how they assign their Electors, and even whether their electors are required to vote the same way as their state, so things can be pretty complicated. In many states, it is winner take all for that state’s Electors, with the winner being the one with the plurality of votes in a FPTP election, which is dumb as fuck. Some others assign their Electors proportionally. There is even a slowly growing coalition of states that, once they reach a plurality of Electors in the coalition, have agreed to no longer assign their Electors on a state by state basis, but on the national popular vote instead. Again, within each of these states, rules differ on the relative power of the Electors themselves to vote according to their own desires even if that goes against the state’s popular vote. They could, also, if they wished, leave each House-tied Elector up to each individual district, or just decided the Electors without considering or even having a democratic vote at all, neither or which currently happens, though. It’s a giant fucking mess, it leads many many people in hard red or blue states to just to just not bother as their vote will be overwhelmed anyway, which is why the Electoral College should just be eliminated and replaced with a national popular vote. But that is a whole other story.
Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system.
Right, that’s what I said in my previous comment. Ranked Choice is an improvement, yes. Though, I think it still is too easy to push the winning vote to the more polar candidates. If the centrist doesn’t rile up passionate supporters (because what centrist does), they are more likely to be dropped in the first round even though they were ranked 1 or 2 for nearly everyone. I prefer Approval voting as my ideal alternative. It does tend to push more toward center, but if the idea is true democratic representation, then that would be the natural result, right? But anything is better than FPTP.
For district seats, that is proportional representation. It doesnt say it is winner take all. When it says that blue or red wins, it is just saying that they won the majority, and have dominate power over whatever government body they represent.
First Past the Post is objectively a problem in general. However, if there are only two candidates, and thus only possible outcomes, with one possible seat, all forms of voting will be functionally identical to FPTP in result. So in this given example, “least bad” and “perfect” are synonymous.
Now if there was a third+ party or more candidates from the two parties, and alternative forms of voting, then things do get more complicated. But the point of the example is to show, in simplist terms, how districting works in an ideal world, and how Gerrymandering can warp the end results to give either the advantage.
When there is one seat, two parties, and you’re using First Past the Post voting (which is a terrible voting system that inevitably causes the two party divide), yes. They perfect out come is majority win. When distributing multiple district seats, proportional representation is the perfect outcome, which that also acheives.
It isn’t actually, not in all cases. There is nothing in the constitution preventing it and the Supreme Court and state courts have said that there is no mechanism in place to either identify it objectively, nor to remedy it if found, with a few exceptions. The biggest exceptions are where it violates the Voting Rights Act or otherwise demonstrably discriminates on the basis of racial demographics (a constitutionally protected class), in which case it can be kicked back to the legislature with the directive to do it again but try to be less racist this time.
Walrus operator does an inline assignment to a variable and resolves to the value assigned. If it is in a condition statement, like “if x := y:”, it assigns the value of y to x then interprets the expression of the condition as of it just said “if x:”. Functionally, that means the assignment happens regardless of the value of y, but the condition only passes if the value of y is “truthy”, i.e. if it’s not None, an empty collection, numerically equal to zero, or just False.
So, I do agree that, under our legal framework as it exists, his self defense case was solid. The first shooting was 100% self defense. He had an aggressive man larger than him charging and chasing him unprovoked for some distance. That man then grabbed the barrel of the gun, which could have been used against him, which is a lethal threat for which lethal defense is justifiable.
But where I think it gets less clear/reasonable is the second and third shoots. He ran from the scene where he shot someone rather than call the police and wait for them (this is the crux of my problem with the outcome of the judgement, which I’ll come back to). Many bystanders understandably ran after him as it seemed he was evading the consequences of the shooting. Some physically assaulted him, including the second victim who who attacked him with a skateboard and tried to take his gun. The circumstances of this, from his perspective, are nearly identical to the first. But, notably, this assault and attempt to disarm is probably legal under Wisconsin law if there intent was to restrain him to deliver him to the police (i.e. citizen’s arrest) as he had been witnessed committing what could have reasonably been viewed as a felony and reasonable force is allowed to execute and arrest. Nothing done to him would be illegal if a citizens arrest was deemed appropriate. Though that is inconsequential in determining self defense as it is about the mindset of the shooter that matters, and this attack would reasonably lead him to fear for his safety as he could not know if they were simply arresting him or indeed attacking him for retribution. So his shooting there was also self-defense under our current legal system.
Then, given his mindset and fear for his life, when he came face to face with someone weilding a gun, and that person made a move to raise their weapon, firing at them was likely justified as self defense given all of the facts that he was privy to at the time too. This was the ruling made, and I think that the law as is was probably on his side here.
But I don’t think it should have been, entirely.
Two things to point out here. First, had the other guy with a gun shot him instead, it would have been equally justifiable for the same reasons. He could have claimed self defense for the exact same reasons Kyle did, and he should and would likely have been found not guilty for exactly the same reasons. This is interesting from a legal stand point because that means two people can be independently justified in shooting/killing the other at a given moment and have no legal consequences for it under the law as it is. But I think that that is wrong, at least in this case.
The reason I think this is wrong relates to my second point. The kid ran. Was it understandable that a kid was scared shitless after just being attacked and shooting someone? Absolutely. Was it reckless and negligent and the direct cause the outcomes any to happen? Yes!
There is room in the law to hold someone accountable to gross negligence, where you know full well that a dangerous or illegal outcome is very likely if you do something and yet you do it anyway. For example, leaving a child in a car on a hot day. It doesn’t matter your intent in such cases, you’re still responsible for the outcome, period. I don’t necessarily think that, in this situation, it quite rises to the level of gross negligence. It could definitely be argued, but it’s hard to say you should know that running from the scene like this would have likely led to two other shootings and one more death. Mainly because as that really depends on the unpredictable mental states and actions of others. However, I think there should still be room for accountability here.
If your actions are at all negligent (even if not grossly so), and through those actions you cause others to fear for their lives and this results in gross consequences like death or serious injuries, I think you still should bare some legal responsibility for this. That is even if the circumstances you find yourself in, outside of the context of how you got into those circumstances, justifies your actions therin.
Another such example being the murder of Treyvon Martin. George Zimmerman can argue all day that he was justified in killing that kid in defense, but the fact of the matter is that he died because he unreasonably created a circumstance where both parties feared for their safety and then someone died.
I don’t know to what extent they need to be found responsible/guilty in those situations or what the degree of punishment should be. Generally negligent crimes are treated as somewhat lesser given no criminal intent. But I know that no responsibility and no punishment is not justice.