Connections
Puzzle #511
πͺπͺπͺπͺ
π¦π¦π¦π¦
π©π©π©π©
π¨π¨π¨π¨
Skill 99/99
Uniqueness 1 in 521
primary education only though
Wait, yous donβt even have free secondary school? I know America has an infamously terrible tertiary education sector, but I thought high schools were publicly funded at least.
2 hours a day is pretty crazy, depending on the intensity. Iβm a dedicated amateur athlete and would have been under 10 hours a week training for a marathon, and woulda been barely over that even when doing my most intense triathlon training.
But a light run/walk most days with a harder gym session or run 3 or 4 times a week is a very different question.
If your goal is to get generally healthy, exercise is brilliant. Donβt be afraid to walk on your runs at first to allow you to recover and keep running.
If your goal is to lose weight, diet control is the most important thing. Exercise can actually make things worse if you arenβt careful, because your body will instinctively want to eat more. Youβll probably need to make sure that you donβt eat more kilojoules after starting exercise than you already eat now. But also as the other reply said, cut your carbs, add more protein (necessary to help your body repair itself after the damage that exercise causes) and veggies. Lots of leafy greens especially.
And what carbs you are eating would be better as whole meal and/or multigrain, rather than white bread/rice and plain pasta.
Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Connections
Puzzle #510
πͺπͺπͺπͺ
π¦π¦π¦π¦
π¨π¨π¨π¨
π©π©π©π©
Skill 98/99
Uniqueness 1 in 1,686
Different defeserated instances, problems with content being federated due to network latency. There are a bunch of possible reasons.
As I understand it, it's a single item of a cheesy corn snack. So there apparently exists a snack called "Cheese Puffs", which are corn-based with powdered cheese covering them. Where I live, Cheezels and Twisties would probably be the closest equivalents.
The "unit" refers to having just one of them. One twisty or one cheezel, or one puff.
when he plays that flute in a later episode
I got teary just now reading the quote from that scene:
"What kind of flute is that?"
"It's, ahβ¦Ressikan."
"I've never seen one before."
"They're not made anymore."
Olive oil is a deeply important cultural touchstone for Palestinians, according to a post I saw a day or two ago.
Basically the plot of The Inner Light, one of the best episodes of television ever made. (That was sadly undermined by the need for a complete reset per the usual rules of episodic television of the time.)
cross-posted from: https://aussie.zone/post/14914389
(Please follow that link to keep any discussion on the subject within one place.)
Transcription
Preference count57.0% (14,915) Labor Party Barbara O'Shea
43.0% (11,254) Greens Amy MacMahor (MP)
- While the Labor Party is well ahead on the two-candidate preferred count for South Brisbane, there remains a possibility that the LNP will pass Labor on postal votes and the flow of One Nation preferences. Were Labor to slip to third, Labor preferences would re-elect Greens MLA Amy MacMahon. Monday's counting of Absent votes narrowed the primary vote percentage gap between Labor and the LNP from 2.7% to 2.3%.
- Barbara O'Shea leads by 3,661 votes.
- Previously held by GRN with margin of 5.3%.
First preference Vote Swing Greens Amy MacMahon 35.1% (10,119) -2.8% Labor Party Barbara O'Shea 31.9% (9,221) -2.5% Liberal National Marita Parkinson 29.7% (8,560) +6.8% One Nation Richard Henderson 3.3% (946) +1.6% Others - 0.0% (0) -3.1% Informal Votes 2.3% (689)
Total Votes 29,535
Results taken from the Qld 2024 Election results for South Brisbane on the ABC 29/10/2024.
I need to preface this by saying that while I prefer proportional systems, if you're going to have a single-winner system I have never seen one I prefer over IRV.
Some context for those not familiar with Australian politics: by coincidence, the parties here are ranked by first preference in order from left to right. As a general rule Greens voters will prefer Labor over anyone else, and most Labor voters will vote 2 Greens. One Nation voters mostly vote 2 for Liberal National (LNP). And most LNP voters will vote Labor before Greens. But some voters are weird: you will see people who vote 1 One Nation, 2 Greens or Labor; etc.
Obviously as advocates of IRV, we usually talk about how it lets you vote honestly without worrying about strategic voting or the fear that your honest vote may increase the chance of your least-favourite candidate winning. I think this is a result that shows the interesting, rare corner case where that isn't entirely true. It's not an argument for going back to FPTP, because it's still much rarer and less destructive than it is there.
In this case, One Nation will obviously be eliminated first and their votes distributed in a way that could prove kingmaker, but doesn't directly affect this discussion.
What actually matters is where the LNP finishes, once all votes have been counted and One Nation votes redistributed. If the LNP stays where they are in third, the LNP will be eliminated and most likely their votes will be redistributed to help Labor win. If the LNP can squeeze just a few more votes out (very possible, given many of the uncounted votes are probably early and postal votesβand the fact that the LNP was doing much better in the polls up until a few days before the election) and finish in 2nd, Labor will be eliminated, and their preferences will likely result in the Greens being elected.
Since most LNP votes would prefer to see Labor win than the Greens, an LNP voter would actually prefer that their candidate finish in third than in 2nd. They would have been better of voting dishonestly for Labor 1st.
A quick aside: One Nation voters could prove kingmaker because if all of them fit the mould of the modal One Nation voter, the LNP would easily fit in 2nd, resulting in a Greens win. Thus, a strategic One Nation voter with full prior knowledge should vote 2 Labor instead of 2 LNP, 3 Labor.
Of course, this should not be construed as an argument against IRV. It requires prior knowledge of how the electorate will vote to take advantage of it, which is a far cry from how easy and even inevitable strategic voting is under FPTP. Look at the seat of Maiwar just across the river, where the Greens are likely to win but the LNP is very, very close and could possibly still get over the line based on postal votes.
If LNP voters were to vote strategically here in the same way I am suggesting South Brisbane voters should, it would remove that chance that the LNP could end up actually winning.
And then there's also the fact that in South Brisbane, the LNP was never going to win either way, and they don't care too much whether it's Labor or Greens. They probably care more about the funding that parties get based on how many first preference votes they receive.
TL;DR right-wing LNP voters could have voted strategically to increase the chance the centrist Labor will win rather than the left-wing Greens.
view more: next βΊ
I just want to briefly make one point because I think most of the important points have been very well covered by others already.
What's terrorism and what's freedom fighters is determined by history. By the same standards that Hamas are being called terrorists, you could easily make an argument that 1910s Irish republicans, black South Africans under apartheid, and British suffragettes (not to be confused with suffragists) could easily be considered terrorists. Innocent civilians were killed by all these groups, but looking back on it today we almost universally say they were in the right, because they were fighting for their groups to receive rights denied to them by the ruling class. Their methods weren't always as perfectly clean as we might ideally want, but the primary target was always someone oppressing them in some way. And right now and for the last half century+, Israel have been oppressing the Palestinian people.