aquafunkalisticbootywhap

After being a vanilla vi then vim user for a long time before switching to neovim, I find folke’s which-key plugin to be very helpful. If i begin a key shortcut combination (or press my leader key), it shows me all the keys I can press next, and again after each additional step of a multi key sequence, and what each key sequence does. it works for mappings Ive added (usually basically the defaults for a new plugin) but also the standard built-in preset keymappings (see the ‘built-in’ plugins for which-key) for things like window mamagement and motions, using/viewing the registers (what did I just yank?), even spelling corrections, which helps you learn and build muscle memory. Often I dont use a specific mapping for a while and this helps me find it, especially when I group mappings by plugin, and/or prefix all mappings for a particular plugin or task with an additional prefix letter, so they all appear as options when I get as far as rembering “all my debugging mappings start with my leader key, followed by d.” By grouping tasks and plugins that way, I can press my leader key and see a list of where to go next, almost like browsing a menu hirearchy. “i dont remember which button to press after leader and d to toggle a breakpoint, but I know that’s where I’ll find it”

you misunderstand, I think. The number of people who voted for 47 is a product of the current voting system. changing the system will do a few things:

some people who voted for 47 may have still selected them as their first choice, but in a different system with ranked choices, one of their second or third choices may have been elected instead, if that candidate had more support overall from a greater majority of the voters (depending on the system uses to select the winner) but basically: better to have a large majority’s agreed second choice than a tiny majority’s first choice

secondly, some people who voted for 47 may have chosen someone else as their first choice if they did not feel it was the only way to make sure their least favorite candidate wouldn’t be elected - a ranked system removes the “spoiler” effect.

so if you see that people who voted the way they did, did so because of the FTTP system AND importantly how the FTTP system can be manipulated with certain types of propaganda, meticulously targeted, to elect an extreme candidate, then it’s not a matter of first “changing their minds,” and more a matter of having a system that elects the representative that most represents most of the people. that is an effective tool against extremism.

great, lmk when that rage does literally anything productive

they already know youre mad at them. fun fact: it makes some of them even happier to vote the way they did. but, sure, be angry! oh those damn, foolish, selfish people! …

ok, yes, welcome to the last 40 years. hi!

now what?

after she refused to pledge that she wouldn’t break a national railway strike

JUST LIE my god youll already be in office and can make up some nonsense why you had to break the strike (Im not antiunion, Im just saying)

JUST FUCKING LIE or were all the existential threats you wouldnt shut the fuck up about (instead of actually having a platform) not worth doing whatever you needed to get into power!?

… sigh

“bombshell”

shut the fuck up already.

oh how nice it would be to see the world unite as one just to take us (the USA) down a peg. I feel like russia and china are really dropping the ball lately

oh, wait lol theyre also run by egomaniacal baffoons :shrug:

This is similar to to how the two major US political parties fail at effectively creating constant, essential evolution of laws in the name of representing ideals.

Candidates that can not, by the very foundational nature of their stated goals and beliefs, form coalitions with other candidates in order to ensure constant progress, create disfunctional governments that fail their citizens. Systems of choice should tend towards the choices that best represent the most widely agreed upon ideas. If those systems are in place, citizens who willingly choose extreme idelogical candidates that denounce compromise and coalitions are getting exactly what they voted for- a government that is doomed to fail.

We need moderate candidates focused on representing the majority of their constituents, and we need voting systems in place that favor moderate candidates. Any system that favors moderate candidates - say candidates that, while maybe not any majority’s first choice, but the second choice of a majority of the same people - is favorable to first-past-the-post, which has allowed exteremism and obstructionism to thrive in our legislative bodies.

The question becomes, do the citizens have that system in place, a system where moderate voices can thrive? If they do, are there those in positions of extreme wealth and power who would benefit from convincing the rest of us that voting for extreme, obstructionist candidates is best? Are those people possibly exploiting the system to create disfuntional governments that protect their wealth and power?

That’s whats happening in the US. Regulatory capture and mass media control, for example, are tools used to convince citizens the war is between us, distracting us from their benefitting from our disfunctional government. These few push the idea that obstructionism and extremism is our only choice, lest you be seen as the enemy. The true enemy is clearly those that care more about themselves and/or their espoused ideals than society at large, a society doomed without a constantly evolving goverment keeping corruption and consolodation of wealth and power in check.

not to say thats not happening as well, but iirc the CA legislature historically has a big cram to pass most of their bills at the end of the session in september. Ive noticed the flood, too, but this happens every year, all the signing and vetoing lumped together