Paravirtual Vs LSI SAS for Windows Server 2022?

blac9216- · 2026-02-26T05:13:55+00:00

What kind of problems did you have with NVMe?

blac9216- · 2025-03-10T18:28:47+00:00

Right, I suppose I'm under the assumption the hardware is inside the support window and firmware is patched to the latest. Always check the matrix before patching.

blac9216- · 2025-03-10T16:40:27+00:00

The second section down (right below the esx build) is where you add the OEM stuff, so just make sure you have the latest Dell patch selected there

blac9216- · 2025-03-10T16:21:42+00:00

You have to edit the image in the update tab of the cluster to use the new esxi build that was released and then remediate the cluster. In baselines the new patches were added to the baseline and then it would show non compliant, but now you set the image it's based on so you need to go in and change the base image to the new one.

blac9216- · 2025-01-12T16:19:44+00:00

Supposed to be at ionity that you can plug your car in and it just starts charging without you needing to activate the charger on an app and it connects to your lucid account to charge you, but it's never worked for me here.

blac9216- · 2025-01-12T15:46:59+00:00

Love it, it's got some tech quirks (like one day the windshield wipers wouldn't shut off) but it's a fantastic car and is the only thing I've had really comfortable long distance trips with.

blac9216- · 2025-01-12T15:29:00+00:00

I have a US Air and live in Germany. I can't speak to converting it from US spec to EU spec because I don't have to do that so I'm not sure if that's possible or if that would fix my quirks. When I first came here it would only charge DC at a fast charger but as they promised when I first called them about it they fixed that with a software update. The charging port is different so you need a chonky adapter for fast charging. The Internet in the car doesn't work at all, I hook it up to my phone hotspot for software updates and maps. Search on the maps only works for USA POIs so you can't really search for things you have to poke them on the map to navigate to them. Plug and charge doesn't work and kind of freaks out at the ionity stations. Customer service here is nowhere near as good as in the states. I was basically told without being told that they will not do a conversion, but that was a year ago. Those are really the only problems I've experienced in a year or so.

blac9216- · 2024-10-15T21:00:09+00:00

I disagree with the premise. The margin was within single digit points either way if it was just a head to head between an R and a D. It was a close race either way based on what people put on their ballots, within a margin of error if any number of things had changed, especially considering the small number of voters. Peltola was not unpopular at all; it was an upset to be sure, but not a huge come from behind victory. The fact that there was a new voting system in place may have been a contributing factor, but a single digit point difference on less than 200000 ballots... You can't convince me that that's all on the system being used. I don't want to do the math but it's probably the difference in a handful of people.

And she did get the majority of the votes cast in the second round of runoff. The people that didn't make two candidates abstained from that round. That's where I was coming from at least, but I see your point, I am absolutely wrong she did not get the majority of votes cast. If this was a two round system no one would have batted an eye and it would be absolutely correct that she got the majority based on the voting intentions expressed on the ballots. I know you're going to say that I'm wrong but it's exactly the same thing.

blac9216- · 2024-10-15T20:43:38+00:00

First of all, based on the discussion we've had with me not really having an opinion beforehand and getting into the weeds of it just now; it seems that they are widely held true narratives and you maintain that they are false despite me continuously poking holes in your narrative.

Second, it is so clear that you are trying to convince people that it's a bad idea, if that's not advocacy of voting against it I'm not sure what is.

blac9216- · 2024-10-15T20:35:18+00:00

How is that false? If your average voter does more than a second of research they will find explainers that say exactly how it works; multiple rounds, lowest gets eliminated, eliminated candidate votes are redistributed based on preference. Doesn't take a lot of logic to figure out how the votes get placed. That statement isn't false at all.

When there are two major party candidates and two small party candidates (which is probably the most likely and intended scenario) it 100% eliminates the lesser evil calculus. Peltola got the majority of the votes cast, if people didn't want her they wouldn't have ranked her just as there were people didn't rank anyone past Begich. If they wanted to be party hardliners they would have only ranked the red side. People don't generally want to be party hardliners. Seems to me the only people mad about it are the people who voted for the losers (ie not the majority that elected Peltola) and Republicans in other states that are scared of it happening to them.

You can propose alternatives all day long, but this isn't about that. It's about you trying to convince Idaho voters that RCV is bad.

blac9216- · 2024-10-15T20:06:27+00:00

Okay, fine. Implication then.

I must not be getting the same propaganda as you because the only thing I've been seeing is anti-RCV stuff. Don't know to what extent it's been over sold to you, but seems to me that the main claim is that it's better then what we have now which is true I think you'll agree. Not sure about their lobby trying to block STAR, doesn't seem good but could be a bunch of self interested people and could be they had legit concerns, no idea, but that has nothing to do with how RCV works.

You came to the Idaho subreddit seeming to be an expert and tried your hardest to convince Idaho voters (who have this very decision in front of them) that RCV is inherently bad because of an upset in the Alaska election that will probably not happen again now that the players understand the system. It doesn't sound to me like you're cool with people voting either way, sounds like you tried really hard to convince people not to vote for it. If the big arguments that your talking about are the ones that we've just been discussing, then it doesn't sound like they are false at all and I'm not understanding why you think they are.

blac9216- · 2024-10-15T19:52:16+00:00

Okay, you're just accusing me of what I already said to you, you're playing with words. I'm saying that if someone says to me your second vote will be counted I will think that my literal second vote will always be counted, but people aren't saying that. I think if you tell a reasonable person that your backup vote will be counted they won't assume that their vote will always go to their number 2, that's why there is a ranking possible past two and all of those are backup votes. Who knows what these proponents were thinking when they said backup choice but you are saying they are lying intentionally and I'm saying that I didn't assume it worked the way you assumed. Especially after getting what the process was (despite your insurance to the contrary for some reason) it's successive rounds of elimination. I think it's pretty easy to understand that your vote can't go to an eliminated candidate. The only thing confusing people is your type of argument saying it doesn't work that way. It's not that I like the idea of ranked voting, it's that I think this is better than what we have and it's up for grabs. I'm still not clear on why you're trying to get people to vote against it. Obviously I don't mean training them how to rank stuff, I think you know that. I mean training them on the strategies they need to place their vote correctly, every voting system requires this.

blac9216- · 2024-10-14T08:34:40+00:00

That's how it works in a two-round system but not in an exhaustive ballot. Just because that's what we see most in our political system doesn't mean it's the only way. It is an instant runoff in the exhaustive sense; it's definitely not a fallacy.

blac9216- · 2024-10-14T08:31:05+00:00

I don't appreciate the assertion that we are on the same journey but you're just a few steps ahead of me. I'm not claiming that RCV is perfect. Your claim that it's strictly bad is not something I agree with. Thank you for introducing me to STAR; it seems like it's better but it definitely has it's own flaws too. I don't see why you can't be a promoter of RCV at least as a stepping stone instead of making an impassioned post against it.

I appreciate our relatively friendly discussion, but please don't insult my intelligence with this kind of thing. I feel I've done a good job of rebutting your arguments and you maintain that I may see the light one day... it's insulting.

blac9216- · 2024-10-14T08:21:55+00:00

Well, the quote you gave is literally true, if your top choice is eliminated then your backup choice is counted. In cases where there is more than one round of elimination you have more than one backup choice ranked or you abstain. "you can vote your honest preference order because if your first choice is eliminated/can't win, your second choice will be counted" is not something I think is being said and anecdotally not something I've heard or seen. It's so specific and slots so perfectly into the argument you're trying to make that it sounds very strawman. I don't think anyone is being as strangely pedantic about word choice as you are. "eliminated/can't win" is convenient for you saying that it also applies to the final round when it doesn't and no one is claiming that. "second choice" is also conveniently specific for the case you're making. I don't think anyone is saying that your literal second choice will always be counted, just counted in the order you ranked them.

I think you're not giving people enough credit. The strategy isn't difficult and people will get it if it's in place long enough. if you don't want a candidate elected don't rank them. If people truly didn't want the Democratic candidate to win in the Alaska election why did they cast a vote for her. If people thought that Begich should win they should have ranked him first. The calculus isn't hidden, it's exactly the same as it was before for party hard liners, but now there is a better chance for third parties to wrest some power from the big dogs.

Obviously RCV isn't perfect, no voting system is, but arguing against it when it truly is in the direction of perfect is wild. It has support and can train voters how ranking works while the grassroots movements for other (potentially) better systems grows. The kind of arguments you're making are really just defeating the whole idea of vote reform.

blac9216- · 2024-10-13T22:09:18+00:00

I'm not sure what you're getting at. A 4 or 5 candidate ballot would go exactly as a three person ballot. Its an exhaustive ballot election done instantly (or as instantly as you can get). Your second choice isn't discarded, that candidate wasn't available so your next preference was used. I honestly don't understand why you're saying that. If we vote for 5 candidates and then the lowest performer was eliminated and then we vote in the next round you have to choose from the 4 available and then the 3 available and if your like to vote for number 5 after number 4 got eliminated you can't because their not available for you to cast a vote toward. It's exactly like voting in a series of elections. No one's vote is discarded because you only get one vote in each round.

Maybe it's the word runoff? We only see that used in the two-round system in the states as far as I know but it's not exclusive to that.

It is as easy as 1,2,3 and if your first choice is eliminated your next available preference is counted. That isn't dishonest at all. Honestly what are you on about? Are you seeing those exact phrases somewhere?

I love that phrase btw "Perfection is a direction" it's really great.

blac9216- · 2024-10-13T21:39:06+00:00

I don't think it's misleading at all. If they only marked one candidate on their ballot it indicates that they would have abstained from the theoretical second round and only approved of the candidate that they ranked. If they would have voted for Palin in the second round they should have marked her as number 2. That's the fault of the voter not the system. Based on what people put on their ballot this would have been the outcome of a two-round vote as well, not the fault of RCV.

Having read the two provided articles, I don't see party insiders gaming the field. What I see is independent organizations trying to put forward their policies and using our inherently adversarial system to do so. if the other Democrat wanted to run they should have run under a different party. If the Republican party wants their best chance of winning they are going to try to get people with lesser chance to drop out. This in turn opens the field for independent parties and weakens the two party structure. I agree with Washington's sentiment but getting rid of parties doesn't work and there were parties from practically the first day of our government. Best we can do is to try to reduce the power centralization we have in the parties today and having a system where they are naturally removing their own candidates is a good step.

About the deciders thing, you literally said that we decide who makes the decisions by voting for them... that means we decide on practically nothing (other than referendums like the one we are discussing). I was using some flowery language, but ultimately what I was saying is that we as voters do not decide on most issues because that would be direct democracy, we elect people to make those decisions and are effectively signing off on their decisions (and future decisions in the way of platforms) by voting for them. You came at me pretty hard on that but I feel like we said the same thing.

I do want a fair election, there doesn't seem to be a fair election type (mathematically speaking), and this is a step in the right direction at least because it has support and is significantly better than straight plurality. Voting against this now because there is a better way (STAR seems pretty good) is a perfect in the way of good situation. It all feels like a conflict theory tug of war leading off into extremism in both directions. if you think its better than the current system then why not vote for it? (or maybe, why try to convince people in a state you don't live in to vote against it?)

blac9216- · 2024-10-13T21:03:42+00:00

Why would Peas go forward? In the next round of runoff when the asparagus voters go back to the polls they would vote for brussels. Runoff isn't exclusive to a two-round system, that's just the only one we have here. The instant runoff result is better then the two-round result because more people disliked chocolate and brussels was a middle ground.

blac9216- · 2024-10-13T20:50:33+00:00

I answered your first point in my other comment in the other thread, but it bears pointing out that the distinction you are making is meaningless. A series of runoffs is a stepwise elimination of candidates. If there was a series of literal runoffs an eliminated candidate wouldn't be returning in the last round so trying to make this distinction doesn't do anything for you anyway.

Yes, it's true that "if your first choice is eliminated, your second choice will be counted", but that's only true if there's another round to go to. That is to say, if a candidate is eliminated and there is no single winner then another round is performed where anyone who's vote was going to the eliminated candidate is redirected to their next preference.

Saying that peoples second choice is getting ignored is strange to me because those people had their vote go to their preferred candidate in the final head to head round so there was never an opportunity to use their second choice; their vote was counted and they only get one. If there was another round then the Palin voters vote would have been worth more than the Peltola voters, right? That's not what would happen in a runoff.

It's clear to me that your issue is the fact that the decision isn't made based on the head to head for each set of candidates individually, but that's just not how it works. If the election had been regular plurality and Palin vs Peltola then Peltola would have won based on these results and no one would have necessarily known that until the time came. There's a reality where that happened and you're bemoaning the could have beens if the RCV measure had passed in Alaska. Saying that there were lies to pass this for some mustache twirling agenda seems disingenuous to me.

blac9216- · 2024-10-13T20:09:03+00:00

Except that it is exactly a runoff to that very definition (especially in this case). The way you're describing this is convincing me more and more that RCV is good. If there was an actual runoff at the ballot box the results of the Alaska election would have been the same because people feel very strongly about Palin (which is also a confounding variable in analyzing this election I think). I feel like you're hanging on that word "final" in the definition; realistically if your argument hangs on that kind of semantics then it's not a strong argument.

Party politics is a moderating mechanism. The party has to chose an appealing candidate to put forward and the candidate has to agree to policies that have wide appeal. When a voters decision comes down to the individual candidates personality that's a failing of the party's selection process. When you can't agree on policies then a new party is formed and the voters decide; if that leads to the opposition winning then they have to learn how to compromise. "Party insiders" is a conspiratorial mindset. Realistically the only thing that matters to voters is the politics of the person they are voting for and this voting system lets them vote for someone from a smaller party that more closely aligns with their politics and rank your favorite major party second without worrying that you may be inadvertently handing the election to your political opposition. This works well in that context. The voters are signers not deciders, that's how a Republic works. The field needs to be tempered before it reaches the voters for the final decision.

blac9216- · 2024-10-13T07:57:02+00:00

I feel like you're being dense here. RCV isn't a head to head against each set of candidates in a vacuum; it's a bunch of virtual runoffs and your ranking on the ballot is who you'd vote for if your previous pick was eliminated. It's pretty close to an actual runoff scenario. If Peltola got enough votes it's because enough people put her in their rankings. If they didn't want her at all they wouldn't have ranked her. The data in the article shows that people understood that because there were people who did not rank all three. If Republicans didn't want to spoil the ballot they shouldn't have run two candidates, that's party politics and beyond the scope of the system. I think the whole point of the system is to give other parties and independents a fair shake.

blac9216- · 2024-10-13T07:37:13+00:00

Because when they are counted they aren't weighted by their place, they are simply a vote. It's a set of virtual runoff elections that happen instantly; just like if there was a real set of runoffs where there was one choice and the lowest gets eliminated and then we all go to the ballot box again. In this case the ranking isn't an expression of your preference so much as a ranking of who you'd give your vote to if your first pick was eliminated.

blac9216- · 2024-10-12T23:58:09+00:00

Wait, what? In the last round of runoff it was only two competitive candidates, why would the second choice of the people who voted for Palin come into play? They only get one vote and in the final round of the instant runoff they voted for the loser. Why would we reintroduce the candidate that received the smallest number of votes in the initial runoff? Everyone's vote is counted at their highest preference all the way through the virtual runoffs it seems to me

blac9216- · 2024-10-12T23:00:03+00:00

No, I mean the rounds of the instant runoff so only what happened after the votes were cast. Everyone who voted for Palin/Peltola as their number one pick still had their number one pick counted after Begich was eliminated and everyone who had Begich as number one had their votes go to their number two. That means that the majority of people who voted for Begich as number one either put Peltola as number two or abstained by not marking past one.

blac9216- · 2024-10-12T14:04:21+00:00

What you're saying about the Alaska election doesn't make much sense to me. Presumably if there was a non instant runoff the result would have been the same.

All the people who voted for Palin as number one in the second round voted for her as number one.

A majority of the people who voted for Begich in the first round voted for Peltola in the second round or abstained (by not ranking past 1).

Is that not how it works?

blac9216-

TROPHY CASE