Interesting, but tends to make a different problem worse. There is no actual individual incentive for voters to devote time and energy to becoming knowledgeable about candidates and issues. This would tend to increase the number of apathetic voters, rather than knowledgable voters.

You want six thousand representatives?!?

I would have said that the problem with the House of Representatives is exactly the opposite: it has too many members, not too few. As for the original constitution, the first congress with all 13 states had 65 representatives. That's already a large number for an organization to debate rationally, but way better than what we now have, 435. That's unmanageable.

We need to drop the number of representatives, not increase it. (Likewise senate).

A congress of 6,800 members would mean each member would have pretty close to zero weight. And you wouldn't be able to pay them, so this would be a volunteer congress of part-timers who can afford to be not paid. They would never meet together, but that's ok, since there's no way 6,800 people could have a reasonable discussion.

I'd think this a worst case solution.

ARM's TrustZone is definitely more secure than the alternatives on Intel/AMD, but TrustZone is also subject to side-channel attacks. To a first approximation, it's impossible to run two workloads on the same CPU and keep them perfectly isolated from one another.

However, I don't think any of these secure enclave concepts are relevant in this case. The way you'd build a private AI cloud is not to run it in enclaves (which are essentially just security-focused VMs) on CPUs that are running other tasks, the way you'd do it is to devote a bunch of CPUs solely to running the private AI workloads. Then your isolation problem becomes the traditional ones of physical access control to the secure machines and securing data flowing into and out of those machines over network connections.

I've been using this Chrome extension to remove annoying things like this from websites:

Click to Remove Element

You got it-- a perfectly rational voter ("rational" meaning "optimizing according to game theory") will use only 0 or 10 scores (assuming simplifying assumptions, of course).

Canada is a parliamentary system. Turns out to behave differently.

Arrow's theorem doesn't actually cover approval voting, since it doesn't quite fit the requirements (short answer, Arrow's theorem has a built-in assumption that the choice function is deterministic based on individual voters' ordered preferences, while approval voting adds an additional voter preference that is not deterministic, the cut-off between "like" and "dislike". You can model this as an additional parameter, but all the ways I know of to modify Arrow's theorem in this way have problems.) Nevertheless, the basic point of Arrow's theorem is important: don't try to find a system that's perfect in every possible case, just look for one that works better in real-world cases.

Run-off voting is, indeed, much better than plurality-takes-all. I will argue that it may be better, but still has problems (e.g., a centrist candidate who would beat either of two opposite wing candidates on a one-on-one election could be eliminated in the first round). But, possibly more important, approval voting completely utterly simple.

Another system that is straightforward is simple numerical scoring: everybody scores all the candidates from zero to 10, and you add up all the scores, highest number wins. That is also trivial to explain. Fast to count votes (only one pass, consisting of addition) but can't be done without modifying existing equipment. (Oddly, this is mathematically identical to approval voting if voters are perfectly rational. But voters aren't, of course.)

It is the net result of Duverger's law, which is a consequence of the voting system where the plurality takes all; which tends to suppress third parties.

If you want to see more than a binary choice, advocate for a system that does not squeeze out third parties. My choice would approval voting, a system which has the advantage of not needing any change whatsoever in the existing voting process, only requiring removing the current constraint that if a person votes for more than one candidate, their vote is discarded.

OMG, I'm so stealing that ;)

So you missed the part that the book/paper/presentation was authored by a woman, then?

Trump appreciates you donating him permanent space in your thoughts.

"Woke" simply means "I'm conservative, and the thing I'm calling 'Woke' is something that I hate". It has no well-defined meaning beyond that. I've heard things as diverse as "the concept of the Metaverse" and "removing copyrighted content so you don't get sued" described as "woke".

No call by push value or P vs NP or complexity theory etc.

So a different set of things that are also useless to the vast majority of people?

Even when Chrome adds support, we'll have to wait ages before we can actually reliably use the format without having to implement fallback logic and fallback formats for legacy browsers.

AVIF is also painfully slow. And if I recall correctly, is outperformed by JPEG XL at moderate and low compression (but - again, if I recall correctly - AVIF wins at highly compressed images). Also, AVIF faces some patent threats. And misses a lot of JPEG XL's interesting features.

A practical issue with a circle is that it is not a circle until it is finished,

That's not the reason at all, AFAIK. The reasoning is, okay, we want people to be able to move from one place to some distance place in the city at the maximum comfortable speed, which is limited by G-forces. You have some guaranteed G-forces from first accelerating and then decelerating. But if it's linear, that's your only G forces. If it's curved, however, you also have radial G-forces.

The Line's train going from one end to the other (170km) nonstop is supposed to do it in 20 minutes, aka with a mean speed of ~510 kph. Let's say a peak of 800 kph. Now if we shape that 170km into a circle, that's 54km diameter, 27km radius. From the centripetal force formula a=v^2/r, that's 222,22...^2 / 27000 ~= 1,83 m/s^2, or a constant ~0,2g to the side. This is on top of the G-forces from your acceleration and deceleration. You can probably deal with ~0,2g in a train if everyone is seated without much discomfort, though it's double what's acceptable for standing passengers. But you can eliminate that if the city is linear (at the cost of increasing the mean distance that the average person has to travel to go from one arbitrary point in the city to another)

That's not to defend this concept. Because the city doesn't need to be 170km long; you can just made it more 2d and have the distances be vastly shorter (at the cost of just needing some extra lateral travel within the city). Honestly, if I were building a "designer" city from the ground up, I'd use a PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) system rather than trying to make it super-elongated.

What got me is that I don't see why this isn't readily resolved by active damping, the same systems that many tall towers now use to resist earthquakes or resonant wind forces. Big heavy weight at the top (or in this case the bottom) hooked up to actuators that make it move in an inverse direction to the sway.

Again, this is not to defend this colossal waste of money. I just don't see why there aren't ready solutions for this specific problem.