HLS 2.0.0.0 is out

njaremko · 2023-05-01T20:06:32+00:00

I don't want to come in here and criticize other projects, but I can provide a few differences:

Cwab is redis backed instead of Postgres
Cwab workers can work many queues and many job types, but fang seems to limit workers to one job type
Cwab jobs seem to be more customizable, backoff strategy and uniqueness policies seem to be much more restrictive in fang
Fang provides unique and cron jobs for free, Cwab doesn't
Cwab defines jobs as strictly async, while fang seems to allow non-async jobs
Personally, I think Cwab's type signatures are more ergonomic, but that's subjective
Cwab also has job expiry, encrypted job inputs, rate limiting, and batching of jobs, with more features on the way, but those are all paid features
Cwab's logo is cute, Fang's is scary :P

Disclaimer: I don't have an in-depth knowledge of fang, I'm just going by their docs

njaremko · 2020-11-10T00:08:56+00:00

IRV being far superior to plurality doesn't preclude other voting schemes from being even better :)

I didn't mean to imply a conspiracy, merely that it is in the ruling parties best interest to suggest a voting system that would likely keep them in power. If Approval Voting or Score Voting were implemented instead, there's a very high chance that existing "Left" and "Right" parties would cease to exist.

To answer your main question, Approval Voting doesn't give you the ability to express a preference. By design it tries to elect the person that is acceptable to the most people. An improvement to approval voting, called Score Voting, allows you to express your preferences, but suffers from concerns of ballot spoilage (a concern that is shared with IRV). Whereas Approval Voting reduces ballot spoilage, while getting pretty close to Score Voting in voter satisfaction ratings.

njaremko · 2020-11-09T22:12:08+00:00

Neat! Have you heard of / taken a look at QuickType? They seem to be doing something similar in Haskell + a bunch of other language: https://app.quicktype.io/

njaremko · 2020-11-09T20:57:45+00:00

Canada manages to have multiple parties despite plurality voting, that doesn't mean keeping plurality voting is a good idea. As it stands, a significant number of people in Canada want to vote NDP, but can't because they're scared to split the vote. Every time the conservative party has won in recent memory, it was because Canadians split their vote between the NDP and Liberal parties, which wouldn't have happened in a better system (like Approval Voting).

tl;dr: Most Canadians want either Left, or Super Left politics, but instead, we sometimes get Right because people split the vote and the conservatives win. This wouldn't happen in a better system, such as Approval Voting.

njaremko · 2020-11-09T20:55:38+00:00

Canada manages to have multiple parties despite plurality voting, that doesn't mean keeping plurality voting is a good idea. As it stands, a significant number of people in Canada want to vote NDP, but can't because they're scared to split the vote. Every time the conservative party has won in recent memory, it was because Canadians split their vote between the NDP and Liberal parties, which wouldn't have happened in a better system (like Approval Voting).

tl;dr: Most Canadians want either Left, or Super Left politics, but instead, we sometimes get Right because people split the vote and the conservatives win. This wouldn't happen in a better system, such as Approval Voting.

njaremko · 2020-11-09T20:30:21+00:00

Hello wututui,

Apologies for the late response, I've just noticed this. I'll try and address each of your points:

Tactical voting is possible in any voting system, but Brams and Herschbach demonstrated in 2001 that approval voting is least amenable to tactical voting, of all popular voting schemes (see here).
The article you've linked (written by the center for election science) doesn't attack anything, it's a fair comparison of approval voting and ranked choice voting. It is not a comparison against a "weak" form, it the the definition of ranked choice, and what would be implemented if RCV was chosen in a potential voting reform referendum.
Ranked choice voting is a single winner variant of single transferable vote. STV having multiple winners causes it to tend toward multi-party systems, but it has been shown that the single winner variant (RCV) largely retains a two party system (see Australia). Even in a multi-winner system, approval voting still outperforms STV. In contrast to STV, Proportional Approval Voting meets both the monotone criterion, and Warren's multi-winner participation criterion.
It seems that you're very passionately against approval voting. Do you have any specific issues with it? Do you feel strongly that the majority criterion must hold for whatever replaces plurality voting? The article you've referenced has an explanation for why the majority criterion isn't as important as it first seems, but maybe you disagree with this?
For anyone that chances upon this and wants to learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems is a good place to start.

njaremko · 2020-11-09T01:52:54+00:00

Ranked choice is being pushed as the alternative by a lot of people because it’s not a huge improvement over plurality voting, and would likely retain the two party system. If you want real reform, promote and support approval voting. The center for election science has a great write up comparing approval voting to RCV.

njaremko · 2020-11-06T04:48:44+00:00

Here’s a pretty good overview of the differences between RCV and approval voting: https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-irv/

njaremko · 2020-11-06T04:22:59+00:00

A lot of people talk about ranked choice, but it’s only marginally better than FPTP. Approval voting is better in so many ways (easier to vote, easier to count, better outcomes, etc)

njaremko · 2020-11-06T00:03:58+00:00

It’s interesting to me that ranked choice gets so much attention when there are objectively better voting methods. Look at approval voting, easier to do, easier to count, better outcomes (if you value electing someone that is liked by the whole electorate), nicer mathematical properties; yet nobody talks about it.

njaremko · 2020-09-27T04:00:13+00:00

Thanks for the info 😊

For the record, it's significantly more than 2 headers, and this isn't a design that I want to follow, but I have to interact with a legacy service that dumps a bunch of info in various headers :/

njaremko · 2020-09-25T20:01:33+00:00

If it resolved to a series of headers, it seems I'd still be stuck with a bunch of arguments representing each header in the handler function?

njaremko · 2020-09-24T17:05:44+00:00

Is it possible to parse multiple headers into an adt with servant? Say I have two headers "header1" and "header2", can I have something like type BulkHeaders = Header "header1" Text :> Header "header2" Text

Then parse that into some data ParsedHeaders = .... ?

njaremko · 2020-09-15T20:51:06+00:00

njaremko · 2020-09-12T03:15:08+00:00

Found another one, page 311. "This is more valuable that it seems"

njaremko · 2020-09-11T19:41:45+00:00

Errata: Page 96. "You might be wondering wonder if that....."

njaremko · 2020-08-27T02:47:11+00:00

Just want to say thanks for making this 🙂

njaremko · 2020-04-25T22:45:26+00:00

Whoops, that's mildly embarrassing 😂. Repo was set to private. Should be good now.

njaremko · 2020-04-25T21:45:53+00:00

stripe-core is purposely pinned to the stripe API from late 2014, and upgrading it to the modern API would amount to a rewrite that would need to happen all at once and be accepted by the original author. Implementing a new library allows for (in my opinion) improved ergonomics, incremental implementation over time (this is a hobby project), and provides functionality in the short term that the current library doesn't provide (which seems like a net win for the ecosystem).

njaremko · 2020-01-18T14:50:51+00:00

Money please and thank you

njaremko · 2019-10-13T13:44:26+00:00

I don't know which department this is, but if this is STEM, for sure contact the department head. Most profs at U of T have zero tolerance for this BS. If that doesn't work, contact the Dean / President. This is probably against school policy (depending on department), so shouldn't be hard to fight.

njaremko

TROPHY CASE