Logi

I believe you dropped an important “not”

Ah, in my mind there was an odd number of EC electors so an even split wasn’t possible without 3rd party electors.

How is a third party winning any EC delegates?

I’m not suddenly about to put a Harris billboard on my lawn

Do they have billboards saying “reluctantly voting Harris out of necessity”?

The distinction between “government regulation” on one hand and “community-devised rules, local monitoring and graduated sanctions for rule violations” on the other seems entirely artificial to me. In both cases rules and enforcement are set up to avoid the tragedy. The latter just uses more feel-good words to describe local government.

If you get a sane voting system out of all this then it just might have all been worth it. But it’s not how I would have gone about getting there…

The two party system is an inevitable consequence of the FPTP election system. Replace that, and you can have multiple parties. Otherwise, you might get a short period of chaos with multiple parties which then settles down to the two winners.

It wouldn’t have worked. You’d never have gotten every single last case and then the exponential growth would have started again. Or, if that had somehow magically worked, the virus would have come back from outside.

There were no simple solutions.

Go home Clippy, you’re drunk

“Algorithmic timeline” might be appropriately specific?

The worst effects of climate change haven’t happened yet so I guess that isn’t true either and you’ll go off at anyone who’ll attempt to use the best available information and modelling to predict that.

You really should read the article. The hypothesis is that global emissions peaked last year and so the cumulative emissions graph that you’re focusing on would start to curve downward this year or maybe next. We’ll “see by the end of the year”.

Again, in the article, things are changing wildly fast and you won’t see that yet in a lagging indicator like cumulative CO₂.

Well played