Having multiple winners doesn't make sense in many contexts. (are we going to have multiple presidents?) Remember that when a system like this is in place, it doesn't just change who wins, it changes who runs. More centrist candidates would run, that appeal to everyone, not one side or the other. The two party system we see, where everyone is either in one party or the other, isn't because of human nature, it is forced upon us by a broken voting system (see Duverger's law)

"Non-mainstream" isn't really the result, as it would tend to pick centrist candidates, which by some definitions are more mainstream than those on either end.

There is a concept called "range voting", which allows you to rank anything between 0 and 100 (or whatever). (a variation of that is 3 levels: like, dislike, and neutral) Problem is, it is severely broken, as anyone using it strategically would simply vote everyone either 0 or 100. Those who vote sincerely end up disenfranchised, as their vote is not very effective. A better solution would be to rank the candidate, but then the best method of tabulation is not 100% clear. Approval, as is, is a pretty good system though. You are effectively forced to vote strategically, rather than being given a choice between "honest" and "smart".

Right and left are relative. Generally they are relative to "center", which could be defined as the median or average view, within the voting population. It doesn't matter if people in other countries are far to another direction, just as it doesn't matter whether people in the distant past or distant future have different views.

I agree that Schulze is better, but Approval is a huge step in the right direction. The biggest problem with Approval is that you need to know who others are likely to vote for if you are to vote most effectively (you should typically approve all candidates that you prefer [or consider equal] to the one you think is most likely to win). This explains the issues pretty well: http://karmatics.com/voting/movienite.html

Technically, it eliminates the main reason for parties to form in the first place, which is to minimize the effects of vote-splitting by way of reducing similar candidates on the ballot. Instead of parties, there might simply be organizations that promote their agendas and the thereby promote all candidates that advance those agendas. In the end, we get centrist candidates. Elections would be a lot less dramatic and exciting, but I think we can live with that.

I don't disagree with that, I just think the "X lives will be saved" statements are probably way off, because they don't account for this effect. Humans balance lots of priorities, safety being one of them. When you change another variable, you can expect people to adjust their behavior to keep the same balance of safety vs. convenience/money/etc. There isn't a lot you can do about it, it's human nature, and actually it's quite rational.

Then you have the problem that people will turn it off, or just not buy/support the technology in the first place if it is too annoying.

...about how many lives will be saved, is that they don't take into account that once in place, people rely on them, and change their behavior accordingly. So if I feel like my car is going to alert me if I am likely to hit something, I don't feel so obliged to pay close attention to my driving -- effectively canceling out much of their effect.

Terrible ergonomics. Your hand will block the view when using the mouse as it's meant to be used, and so see it you have to take your eyes off the screen. Seems like a bad idea to me.

Yeah, dopamine is essentially the brain's implementation of happiness/pleasure. It basically causes the brain to weight its circuitry to cause previously followed decision paths to be more likely to be followed in the future. You should expect that dopamine is produced whenever experiencing pleasure, so this article to me is a big "Duh!"

If your teaching style is to frustrate your students, rather than get them doing something fun and satisfying as quickly as possible.

You have to wonder though, did they think about this before they decided to move to antarctica?

No matter how good the antenna on a geostationary satellite, you can't make light go faster. There will always be an annoying delay when using GEO sats.

It may be 360 degree, but not 3d. It doesn't process depth any more than a traditional 2d camera, it just takes a wider angle of view.