Even then, I think there's a good chance you'd pass the insoluble oxide before it killed you.

Spaceborn or would-be-spaceborn RTGs have crashed many times with no outcry or PR trouble for the responsible space agencies, I don't see any reason why this would be any different.

One coal burning stove can pose a significant health hazard to its users, though.

The closest thing is probably uselessd (their site is apparently down temporarily). Not sure if that should be considered "keeping systemd" or not...

There's a list of specific issues (mostly not the vague hand-wavy complaints you're talking about) with systemd here.

Personally, I think uselessd should be getting a lot more attention in all this. (Their site is down atm, just a temporary provider issue I think).

Corporations like...Debian? Uh...

Thanks for being civil. I also apologize for probably coming across as patronizing. Most people I know actually support the popular vote laws, so it's also good to hear other opinions.

I definitely agree with the second part of the statement - and historically, I don't think there can be much argument on the point. However, while I don't see an inherent value in the indirect election system (especially today), because the Constitution allows states to determine how their electoral college votes are apportioned, it's important to separate problems caused by the states versus any caused by the electoral college itself as laid out in the Constitution.

I do see two issues with the EC itself. These are 1) the increased value of votes from less populous states and 2) the potential for states to undemocratically appoint electors (e.g. in the past some states had legislatively appointed electors). While the latter of these is probably irrelevant today, I'm not convinced that the president should be elected geographically, especially given that the House and Senate already are.

Outside the EC as laid out, I think the winner-take-all system for EC votes established by most states has some poisonous results for American democracy, especially the irrelevance of 'safe' states to the president. Presidential politics becomes distorted by an extraordinary focus on the interests of citizens in a few states, which denies safe-state voters presidential representation while encouraging swing-state voters to vote tactically rather than as they please (the issue which got this discussion going).

I think that (state-level) national popular vote legislation might be the simplest means to resolve these problems, without any need for federal legislation or changes to the Constitution. To clarify, the national popular vote legislation can be paraphrased as: "once states representing more than 50% of the electoral college votes have passed similar laws, then this state will give all of its electoral college votes to the candidate winning the national popular vote."

In any event, given that the electoral college and popular vote have only disagreed four times so far, I would say that any potential problems with the electoral college system are much less pressing than House district gerrymandering (probably the most important issue in American democracy today).

At this point you're just trolling - I'm sure you actually know the difference between fact and opinion.