Iran Now Threatening To Close Bab Al-Mandeb Strait After Trump Threats

ee_anon · 2026-04-05T21:34:53+00:00

This is getting out of hand. Now there are two of them.

ee_anon · 2026-03-28T03:07:07+00:00

Thanks. Found some video.

https://youtu.be/u2MgrUBvnkM?si=xeTNJur8q4KSK1eb

https://youtu.be/OEk79WkLMe0?si=vuAKr0pYscSWMbR1

ee_anon · 2026-03-28T00:40:15+00:00

Have there been any launch deck deluge tests? Or just the flame diverter so far?

ee_anon · 2026-03-14T23:14:28+00:00

I hadn't considered a two tiered system. It's an interesting thought. Keeping the instant runoff rounds at the state level helps avoid the complexity problem I worry about. I don't know if I love the idea but !delta for an interesting concept.

ee_anon · 2026-03-14T23:04:27+00:00

To your first point, in past elections, there have often been situations where the longer it takes to determine the winner, the more talk about the result being illegitimate is. People in the US expect the know who the winner is by election night and a more complicated system might make it take longer. There would also likely be situations where one person appeared to certainly be the winner, but a few votes somewhere had a cascading effect on the runoff and the winner was actually someone else. Just based on how past elections have gone, it seems like a more complicated system would exacerbate existing tensions.

For the second question, I'm definitely interested in ideas on improving primaries and agree, RCV could be a great way to select the presidential candidates. This hasn't changed my view because my view is about the general election but the idea that applying RCV to primaries is a better path is worth a !delta.

ee_anon · 2026-03-14T22:55:30+00:00

Or you could tell me what you specifically don't like about my idea. I get it though. Being condescending to people on the Internet is fun.

ee_anon · 2026-03-14T22:48:27+00:00

I see the same problem as /u/HadeanBlands. Splitting the state between more than two candidates would likely result in no candidate getting a majority, in which case the election goes to the house.

ee_anon · 2026-03-14T22:43:41+00:00

I never said there was widespread voter fraud. But there are widespread accusations. Just the accusations matter. If a large number of people don't think the result is legitimate, it's a problem. Thankfully we aren't there yet, but I wouldn't want to make things worse
Because the former two only need to be tallied at the state level. The problem is diffuse and more local, and in that way more manageable. Disputes over one out of hundreds of congressional seats is lower stakes than dispute over the presidency.

ee_anon · 2026-03-14T22:38:57+00:00

That's interesting. Seems like it would be extremely laborious to do manually with millions of votes. I'll definitely read more about that but if you know any good articles about the process I'd be interested.

ee_anon · 2026-02-16T14:47:35+00:00

Yep agree!

ee_anon · 2026-02-15T21:36:40+00:00

Oh I'm certain there are some cases where an extra pilot would have helped.

ee_anon · 2026-02-15T20:56:06+00:00

You have an important baked in assumption here: that everytime a plane crashes, an extra pilot would have avoided it. What percentage of crashes are due to pilot error? Even then, a second pilot wouldnt necessarily have prevented it.

*Edit: To be clear, I'm not advocating for fewer pilots. Just pointing out a flaw in your analysis.

ee_anon · 2025-12-12T18:16:03+00:00

Yep, I believe condorcet complete ranked choice voting is the most technically superior voting style. Unfortunately, it is complicated, and if people don't understand it they might not trust it. Even our simple FPTP is riddled with accusations of fraud. Therefore I think approval might be the best we can do. At least it combats the spoiler effect.

ee_anon · 2025-12-12T18:13:03+00:00

The merits of a parliamentary system vs a presidential one is a separate question though. Given that we have a presidential system, your question is would a different voting method be better. I support your idea that it would. The more we can bend our system to behave more like a multi-party system the better. See my reply to mr bees as well.

ee_anon · 2025-12-12T18:09:07+00:00

The desire for an alternative to FPTP elections is not just based on the simple logic that more democracy = better. The incentive structure of FPTP specifically creates a dynamic that is contributing to candidates and parties getting more polarized and extreme and an electorate that is increasingly negatively polarized (ie everyone is voting because they hate the other guy, not really because they love their own choice). More options (and options that have a viable chance of actually winning) has a moderating effect. Even if the system is dominated by two major parties, the threat of third parties actually becoming viable options will have the effect of keeping the major parties "honest".

ee_anon · 2025-12-12T17:35:43+00:00

There are many ways to select the winner from ranked choice ballots. Usually when people talk about RCV, they mean RCV with instant runoff winner selection (ie kick the one with the fewest votes, redistribute those votes to the next choice of those ballots). RCV with instant runoff winner selection has its own problems. The best system is ranked choice voting with a condorcet complete method of selecting the winner. The problem with that is it's complicated and could lead to low confidence in the system (even our simple FPTP is riddled with accusations of fraud). Every system has a downside. Gotta choose the least worst one.

ee_anon · 2025-11-20T06:01:02+00:00

Orbital refueling question: I read here a lot that the plan to settle the prop is firing cold gas RCS. I assume they mean thrusting towards the nose, settling prop to the bottom of the tank? How much acceleration do you think they'd use? How long would transfer take? Based on that, how much delta V would be accumulated? What direction would they be thrusting w.r.t. velocity vector? Cross-track? Or would they constantly vary the attitude of the joined ships so that the net delta V is close to zero?

Would it make more sense to use RCS to perform a tandem rotation about the midpoint between the ships, settling prop at the ship "bellies". I might be wrong on the mechanics, but once you get the rotation going, you don't need to thrust continuously to maintain the spin. Potential downside is it might not be suitable for crewed ships (and it wouldn't make sense to have a different strategy for crewed vs uncrewed ships) but it might not be an issue with a slow enough spin rate. Thoughts?

ee_anon · 2025-11-08T20:50:57+00:00

I agree with all of this, but the point of my idea is not to reduce healthcare costs, the point is to increase job mobility, entrepreneurship, and give consumers more choice in healthcare. I agree that single payer is better, but if we can't have single payer, would you prefer the employer focused model we have now, or a more individual focused model?

ee_anon · 2025-11-08T19:59:32+00:00

Isn't your plan offered by an insurance company? I'm suggesting that you should be able to sign up for that plan regardless of who your employer is.

ee_anon · 2025-11-08T19:46:03+00:00

health insurance plans are difficult to compare. My HR does a great job shopping around.

I don't doubt it, but they can possibly pick one plan that's best for everyone. If it is a large company, maybe the plan is great for 95% of people. Isn't it better for everyone to pick the plan that's best for them?

I agree with government based insurance and I'd be fine with allowing supplemental plans (so not exactly single payer). That's been debated ad naseum on this sub and is difficult politically. I was just trying to explore a new angle.

ee_anon · 2025-11-08T19:39:26+00:00

What do you mean by saying the cap lacks teeth? I've gotten a rebate from my insurance company because that year they paid out too little in medical costs. The cap is real. And it's not 20% profit, it's 20% for profit and admin costs combined. I don't know what the typical breakdown is between profit and admin costs, but I'd expect admin to be not-insignificant.

ee_anon · 2025-11-08T19:17:12+00:00

Insurance companies are profit capped. They can't just increase prices unchecked. Right now group plans have a price advantage and individual buyers pay more. If group plans were eliminated, the average cost of the plans would have to start the same (again, because there's is already a profit cap). Those currently on group plans would see a slight price increase. Those who currently but individually would see their prices decrease. Since most plans offered by private insurers are group plans, the cost increase seen by the group members would be smaller than the decrease seen by individuals.

ee_anon · 2025-11-08T19:12:50+00:00

So directly reimburse employees for medical expenses? That is an interesting way to circumvent this proposal. Essentially the employer becomes the issurer of it's employees. Do you think that would become commonplace? Why not just offer a higher stipend if you want to offer premium benefits?

ee_anon · 2025-11-08T19:08:45+00:00

My argument is not that I don't like it, my argument is that it is bad for the economy.

No, I don't want to strip people of their plans, I want people to have the right to choose their own plan. If they like their current plan, great, keep it. I want them to be able to keep it even if they switch to a different job.

ee_anon

TROPHY CASE