SubArcticTundra

Since it spans the whole floor space there must be a massive cavity in there

Put simply, it's like FPTP but instead of being confined to voting on the seat allocated to your constituency, you can choose which seat in the parliament your vote should be counted towards. Parties can still run in as many or as few of the seats as they see fit. The system incentivises a party that thinks it has 10% of the vote to only run candidates in 10% of the seats.

What differentiates this from FPTP is that under this method, speculation about the results has to happen on both sides, as both sides have the potential to influence how many votes get wasted.

Under FPTP

• Voter risk: that splitting their votes between too many political parties will mean that none of them will win.
• Party risk: none

Hence,

• voters have to speculate about which parties might realisticly win

Under SNTV

• Voter risk: that splitting their votes between too many political parties will mean that none of them will win.
• Party risk: that splitting their voters between too many seats will mean that they won't win in any of them. (That running in too few seats means they win by high margins, and the superfluous votes could have been used to win extra seats.)

Hence,

• voters have to speculate about which parties might realisticly win*
• parties have to speculate about how many voters they might realisticly get

Some thoughts:

• It feels like it's PR, except instead of being based on maths it's based on pre-election speculation, which is vulnerable to bluffing and media manipulation.
• under FPTP, it is on the voters to organise amongst themselves (this usually just means reading the hivemind). Under SNTV, it is in the interest of the voters to cooperate with the parties they intend to vote for.
• whilst FPTP incentivizes smaller parties to bluff about the size of their voterbase (so that voters don't feel that voting for them is futile), the two-way speculation under SNTV forces parties to find out how large their voter base actually is (to calculate how many seats they can afford to split their vote between and still win).

*(EDIT: do they? A fringe party might be able to get in if they only run in a single seat – this wouldn't work under FPTP)

So I'm 20 and I've started looking at the salaries of jobs/careers, and this is the impression I've gotten. Like that you could spend years cramming a ton of knowledge about a very niche field, and still only get 2-3x what a run-of-the-mill job makes. Is this true? If yes then I guess this route to wealth would only make sense (due to the diminishing returns) if the topic truly spoke to you, right? Are there alternative career paths to good pay than being really good at something really specific?

ie. that paginates the feed? I realise that Lemmy clients modeled their design after the for-profit apps, but the incentives that lead to infinite scroll are now gone.

Edit: while I'm at it, I wanted to say that I think it'd be a cool feature if apps supported sharing your blocklists.

> thirsty
> mug is empty
> take it to kitchen
> drink

> thirsty
> no mug