Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

discuss.python.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 289 posts

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#121

Post by bb88 »

AlbertCory wrote: post #81
OutOfHere wrote: post #31

[flagged]

Maybe look at how it's worked out in practice, instead of just giving the theory. We have a two-party system, and that's just the way it is. https://alaskapublic.org/2024/05/29/ranked-choice-voting-tha... Gamesmanship: Alaska is a red state. Only RCV would result in a Dem being elected. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/alaska-ranked-choice-voting-mary... (not on archive, sorry. Here's the relevant part) Republicans have l…

> We have a two-party system, and that's just the way it is.

Some argue that our current voting system creates the two party system we all know and hate. Derek from Veritasium did a video about this the other day. Really good stuff.

No need to come to Palin's or the Republican's defense here. Candidates are more than capable of trying to campaign for the second place votes.

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#122

Post by bb88 »

AlbertCory wrote: post #120
shiroiushi wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually a really interesting real-life instance showing that, in this particular case, RCV didn't achieve an optimal outcome. But what's a better voting system that would have achieve the presumably optimal outcome here (the less-polarizing GOP candidate Begich getting elected)? If we just compare to simply plurality voting, the outcome seems the same: Peltola got the highest vote of the 3, so in regular FPT…

I think "begging the question" describes your answer, in the classical sense of "assuming what you need to prove." You are assuming that a multi-party, multi-candidate election is a desirable norm. But that needs to be proven by you, not assumed. In a pre-RCV system, the parties would choose their candidates, however they do it, and then the general election would pit one candidate of each party against each other, p…

> The public has not accepted that that must be eliminated.

RCV will be on the ballot this fall in Ruby Red Idaho. Let's see what happens.

> You are assuming that a multi-party, multi-candidate election is a desirable norm.

Easy. Both Trump's and Biden's approval numbers are both in the toilet. Yet they both easily won their primaries.

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#123

Post by jart »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #119
userbinator wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No drama in C that I can remember either, because there is not much of a "community" in the first place.

There's a community, just too busy with the actual programming.

There's an online community for Cosmopolitan C on places like Discord. Everyone who's there, is there because I welcome them and want them to be there. The code of conduct is you have to behave like Mr. Rogers. There's no sexism, racism, name it. The C developers in our community don't even use swear words.

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#124

Post by cool_dude85 »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #67

My spidey sense first got tingling a few years ago when the Python powers decided they were going to rename their git master branch to something else. Caused them unnecessary work and to this day it's not certain any developer or user actually asked for it. The word has multiple meanings of course; yet felt like a symbolic gesture to alleviate guilt totally unrelated to Python. I didn't complain without a dog in the…

>Unfortunately a few years later I can say the opposite.

It's your contention that people getting up in arms about not changing the name of the 'master' branch specifically look good now, with hindsight? Can't say I agree.

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#125

Post by AlbertCory »

bb88 wrote: post #122
AlbertCory wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "begging the question" describes your answer, in the classical sense of "assuming what you need to prove." You are assuming that a multi-party, multi-candidate election is a desirable norm. But that needs to be proven by you, not assumed. In a pre-RCV system, the parties would choose their candidates, however they do it, and then the general election would pit one candidate of each party against each other, p…

> The public has not accepted that that must be eliminated. RCV will be on the ballot this fall in Ruby Red Idaho. Let's see what happens. > You are assuming that a multi-party, multi-candidate election is a desirable norm. Easy. Both Trump's and Biden's approval numbers are both in the toilet. Yet they both easily won their primaries.

If that's your idea of "proof" I think we're done here.

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#127

Post by mindslight »

naniwaduni wrote: post #98
PaulHoule wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the worst thing about U.S. national elections is that the winner of the electoral vote might not be the winner of the popular vote. Whether or not that is right is beside the point but anything complicated about the results that make them hard to understand will subtract legitimacy. I’d go so far to say that the system will not survive if we got several elections where one particular party consistently loses…

> The last thing we need, seen through that lens, is a complex system where people don’t understand the results or how exactly their vote will affect those results. And this is one of the best features of approval voting compared to any form of ranked choice!

"The winner is preferred to each other candidate, by the majority of voters" seems pretty straightforward to me. The problem with Approval is that we're right back at the Faustian bargain of needing to fully support the lesser evil at the expense of your preferred option. And the only thing Range adds is allowing you to moderate the amount of that bargain.

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#128

Post by AlbertCory »

bb88 wrote: post #121
AlbertCory wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe look at how it's worked out in practice, instead of just giving the theory. We have a two-party system, and that's just the way it is. https://alaskapublic.org/2024/05/29/ranked-choice-voting-tha... Gamesmanship: Alaska is a red state. Only RCV would result in a Dem being elected. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/alaska-ranked-choice-voting-mary... (not on archive, sorry. Here's the relevant part) Republicans have l…

> We have a two-party system, and that's just the way it is. Some argue that our current voting system creates the two party system we all know and hate. Derek from Veritasium did a video about this the other day. Really good stuff. No need to come to Palin's or the Republican's defense here. Candidates are more than capable of trying to campaign for the second place votes.

You hate it. Don't generalize to "we all."

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#129

Post by rdtsc »

II2II wrote: post #68
rdtsc wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is always who enforces the law and if and how they choose to enforce it.

If the comment was the reference to a banned member, was the action actually inappropriate? If the banning of the member alluded to was inappropriate, there is a time, place, and tact to address that. If the process does not allow for that, then you work towards changing the process. If the governing body doesn't allow for that, then why the heck would you make a comment that could derail a discussion regarding how t…

> If the comment was the reference to a banned member, was the action actually inappropriate?

Yes

> why the heck would you make a comment that could derail a discussion.

Banning the poster derailed the discussion even more. So much so, it made it to front page of HN.

I am not arguing they shouldn't have banned Guido because of who he is; I am arguing banning anyone should have a pretty high threshold, and when it happens it should be done with extreme transparency. Asking to wait for a member to join the discussion later about a relevant topic shouldn't come anywhere near that threshold.

Re: A post by Guido van Rossum removed for violating Python community guidelines

#130

Post by bb88 »

yarg wrote: post #114
bb88 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The weaponisation of censorship is predominantly a far left tactic. Incorrect. It's an authoritarian tactic, which can either be left or right. On the right today is Idaho with their new book banning law prohibiting minors from accessing books with LGBTQ+ themes (regardless of whether there was any sex or not). On the left, you have Tipper Gore which was famous for advocating for the sticker placed on CD's to alert…

I'm sorry, do you really need to be so damned pedantic? Today - in the present, given the relative levels of influence of the different authoritarian groups, it is predominantly the far left that is engaged in the weaponisation of censorship. I can't take the children's library arguments seriously any more. Right now there are books in school libraries that are too obscene to be read from in council meetings.

> do you really need to be so damned pedantic?

This is HN. Pedantry is a badge of honor. /s

Seriously though the facts aren't in your favor. I call BS on your primary thesis.

Post reply on HN