Michael Allan wrote:
I don't know if it's helpful information, but Mercurial and Git are
functionally very similar. There isn't much to choose between them.
I never understood why Torvalds and crew bothered coding Git in the
first place. I use Mercurial.
There's a bunch of hosting sites for
Jameson Quinn wrote:
How hard it is to vote in each system is an empirical, not a theoretical
system. The evidence is pretty clear that it is easier for most people
to rate candidates on an absolute scale - whether numeric or verbal -
rather than ranking them relative to each other. That is
⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
¡Hello!
¿How fare you?
In list Election-Methods run out of Electorama.Com, I hit upon why
rating is easier and faster than ranking:
With rating, one determines the best candidate and gives that
candidate the rating +99. One determines the worst candidate and
gives that
⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
2011-05-07T08:29:34Z, “Kristofer Munsterhjelm”
km_el...@lavabit.com:
The country I live in (Norway) has PR with multimember districts,
and I haven't heard of problems like that. Large projects usually
get the required analysis before they're built, even if they would
only
Yes, Git differs in the structure of its network. Git's network is
distributed wheras Subversion's is centralized:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_control#Distributed_revision_control
The most interesting consequence is political. The authors in a
distributed network require no permission
Hi,
So, not everybody knows that you can have equal ranking and truncation in
rank methods. But how about this idea that the default rating in Range
ought to be mid-range (i.e. half an approval)? Is this defensible? It
seems to me you'd get write-ins winning much of the time.
Or, if write-ins
2011-05-09T07:46:22Z, “Kristofer Munsterhjelm” km_el...@lavabit.com:
⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
With ranking, one must determine and remember the full rank order. It is
very easy to forget:
“¡Darn! ¡I should have ranked Candidate T between Candidates I and
L!”
This
In sincere / non-competitive Range mid-range default value could make sense. If
0 is the neutral value, then a negative value would mean that the voter prefers
a random unknown candidate to that candidate.
In competitive elections the default value should normally be the lowest value
/ ranking
