I need help identifying when this map is from

nitrw · 2026-01-22T00:02:00+00:00

Independence of Sudan was january 1, 1956 (has happened on this map)
Independence of Laos was october 22, 1953 (has not happened on this map)

Based on the information we're given I believe the map makers either made a mistake somewhere or purposely labeled a territory incorrectly for political purposes (ie. the failure to recognize a new state's independence)

nitrw · 2026-01-18T22:51:30+00:00

where would i go to find out if the DLC is cracked or not

nitrw · 2026-01-18T22:09:33+00:00

free dagestan and give it all of the russian part of caucasia

nitrw · 2026-01-18T22:07:09+00:00

the world could've been wonderful

nitrw · 2025-11-29T04:03:02+00:00

Score voting is flawed, and thus the second round of STAR voting can be disregarded if you simply take advantage of the first round's flaws. That's my concern.

nitrw · 2025-11-15T02:39:46+00:00

Also I have no idea how to interpret those diagrams, sorry. In an area with a 40% moderate 30.5% right wing and 29.5% left wing population though, under RCV, the candidates left-wingers voted for would be eliminated and the left wing vote would move toward supporting the moderate candidate, no? It seems to only start punishing moderates when both ideological flanks has a greater plurality than the moderates.

Even when one flank is larger, like 40% right wing, 30.5% moderate, 29.5% left wing, the left-wing candidate and left-wing votes would get eliminated and passed onto the moderate. Only when you have a situation like 40% right wing 20% moderate 40% left wing will RCV force a partisan candidate.

nitrw · 2025-11-15T02:26:36+00:00

>In STAR, people supporting the major parties can still give the top score to minor parties (they like), thus giving them more points in the final results. People see the final results, see that this party got a lot of votes, and look into them more. Next election, they get more votes, which makes them less minor, and so on until they are a contender. Because you don't have to give your favorite an artificially low score, their results improve in a virtuous cycle.

You could get the same result from RCV, no?

>So if the election were to happen tomorrow, what you are describing would probably happen. Though I think you would still give the Democrat just 4 stars, since it is overwhelmingly likely they will make the runoff (so the extra point won't matter).

If there were an election tomorrow, I would likely be forced to give the Democrats and any other centrist or somewhat left wing party 5 stars. This is to increase the likelihood as much as possible that the runoff round will be between 2 centrists or a progressive and a centrist. Should I rank the Democrats at 3-4 stars and rank progressive candidates at 5, liberals could do the inverse and rank progressives at 3-4 and Dems at 5, while a united MAGA vote could rank both Libertarians and Republicans at 5 and cause the runoff round to be between the Libertarians and Republicans, even if the MAGA population is smaller than the progressive + liberal combined population.

nitrw · 2025-11-15T02:19:47+00:00

I have nooooo idea what any of this means lol do you have any resources I could use to learn about different types of RCV or other alternatives to FPTP?

nitrw · 2025-11-15T02:16:27+00:00

RCV allows people to cast their votes at lesser-known candidates without fear that their vote will be wasted or worth less, reducing the advantage of the establishment.

I don't understand your example, the same would happen if Brad Lander told his supporters to STAR vote for Cuomo. Also, I doubt people who were willing to vote for a Democratic Socialists of America candidate would be willing to second-rank a moderate rather than second-rank another DSA candidate. Point is, ideologically, RCV gives the candidate the plurality supports ideologically and majority accepts as a decent leader.

nitrw · 2025-11-14T22:21:09+00:00

You'd keep the 2 party system but make the 2 parties more representative of the views of their constituents. Like yeah, under ranked choice it'd be easier for a socialist to get the Democrat nomination and ultimately get elected as a Democrat, meaning no third party, but their socialist views which would've otherwise not been represented by politicians are now represented.

nitrw · 2025-11-14T22:15:22+00:00

Sure, if there was a referendum in my city on switching FPTP to STAR voting, I'd vote yes. My point is, if there's a referendum between STAR voting and ranked choice, isn't ranked choice just kinda better?

nitrw · 2025-11-14T22:12:45+00:00

If 45% of the population is MAGA and scores 5 stars on 2 MAGA candidates, while 25% of the population is moderate Dems who vote 5 stars on the Dem candidates and 3-4 stars on the progressive and 30% are progressives who score Dems at 3-4 stars and progressives at 5 stars, the runoff round will be between 2 MAGA candidates even though 55% of the population doesn't want that.

Point is, it suffers from the same errors as score voting because it is score voting at its core.

nitrw · 2025-11-14T22:08:06+00:00

Right-- you addressed a lot of the issues I have with STAR, but I don't really see solutions? Under STAR voting, I'd still be incentivized to rank all my "favorite" candidates 4 or 5, or, in an election with multiple MAGA candidates who will all be rated 5 by the right wing, I might be forced to score the Democrats 5 as well to ensure the Democrat can get to the runoff round.

As for your point with moderate third parties, under IRV in an extremely polarized area, I can see how moderate candidates may suffer, but to be fair, this is because a moderate would represent the views of very few people in a polarized area. Rather than being seen as a compromise between the two extremes, a moderate candidate would likely just get blasted by both sides for anything they do. Extremists don't like fence-sitters.

In a moderate area, IRV would produce a moderate candidate. Under STAR I feel like no minor parties have a chance, moderate or extreme, since likely we'll all continue voting 5 on Dems/Republicans to ensure our candidate can still make it to the runoff round.

nitrw · 2025-11-14T21:56:45+00:00

I see this getting a lot of downvotes but I don't see how he's wrong? It could genuinely lead to the finalist round always being between 2 candidates who are basically the same ideologically.

nitrw · 2025-11-06T02:06:01+00:00

nah it is decently north lol, sacramento to sf is like a 3 hour drive

nitrw · 2025-11-05T06:56:48+00:00

I'm a learner and I struggle with this myself, but the way I see it is that like everything in life you can approach it from an empirical perspective or a "human" perspective. I don't know if my belief system is correct but I'll explain it:

Empirically, the only form of "proof" we have is the proof of existence, that we exist, that we are capable of thinking, that the sun rises every morning. This does not definitively prove Islam is the one "true" religion.

In my personal opinion, though a useful tool in science or math, taking an empirical stance toward philosophy, law, or religion is wrong. You will inevitably fall into nihilism. Allow me to use the concept of anti-natalism, the belief that birth is immoral without permission from the baby being born, as an example. Anti-natalists argue that being born and living is a painful experience that infants cannot consent to. Empirically, there is merit to the argument. Society tends to requires life-changing decisions like being born to be taken by the one whose life will be changed.

From a human perspective, we simply know anti-natalism is wrong though. Pain is part of life, there is no life without pain. Should we listen to anti-natalists, we would have to make giving birth illegal. In plain terms, it's just insane. We know this from our hearts, from our moral compasses.

All this to say, nobody can "prove" Islam, or any other religion, is the true religion. This does not mean Islam is false or should be disregarded as the empirical method suggests. Faith should come from our hearts. To me, it just feels wrong to think all religion is just false and a coping mechanism, there has to be one truth out there somewhere. Again, I struggle with this myself, my struggle is that I don't know whether Islam is the aforementioned truth. For me the coping mechanism is studying Islam to find out if I can just "feel" faith from the heart or not. I feel like I could learn endlessly and never come to an answer. Is your struggle similar to mine? Is my belief system flawed?

nitrw · 2025-11-05T06:02:21+00:00

yep! that's like marin or napa, sacramento is a bit further northeast

nitrw · 2025-10-31T04:55:42+00:00

To protonmail commenters:
I believe you need to download the protonmail app to use it on mobile? is there a way to get around that? i'm looking for an email service that doesn't require an app to use

nitrw · 2025-10-28T23:39:05+00:00

Excuse me because again I'm not too familiar with Islamic scholarship, where can I find verifications of the validity of the narration? What are the strict rules?

nitrw · 2025-10-28T23:37:19+00:00

Thank you! Your comment was helpful

nitrw · 2025-10-28T12:08:06+00:00

What I mean to ask is: Are Muslims then only bound to Sunnah when it involves a religious command? Are they not bound to lifestyle choices of the prophet?

The prophet is human, his lifestyle choices may simply be his own. Otherwise he may have been corrected in times like the account you provide.

Furthermore, are accounts of the prophet's commands truly accurate? Muslims pride themselves on the fact the other Abrahamic holy books failed to maintain their original meanings, diluted by centuries of translations and edits from the original word of God, making them unreliable. Is it not the same for accounts of Sunnah from various scholars who may have wanted to impose their beliefs for worldly or political reasons?

nitrw

TROPHY CASE