You ended on a high note.

Serious answer: orders of growth.

Ain’t no way you keep exponential growthinating in a finite dimensional universe.

I’ve heard the creative limitation argument a few times now. Maybe some of the incredulity people show at the thought of not eating meat is due to a lack of artistry, either in them or in their meals. Food is an art form we practice daily, and the people I’ve known to most violently protest trying a vegan dish (not veganism itself!) seem to overlap with the worst dinners I’ve seen.

If so that would give an easy avenue to lower meat consumption.

You’re trying unbearably hard to come across as smart. Try less.

That rounding error would be small enough that most people would consider it less bad than incest, maybe.

Reading comprehension is for people who paid attention in school. Nerds.

Doesn’t exist, 3 is prime. No combination of 2^-n will get you a 3 in the denominator.

…unless somewhere along the tree there’s a person who shows up twice.

Through a postcolonialist lens this is pretty clever. Use of civilized as a term to excuse the racist and expansionist actions of one’s own country, expansion which happens to have coincided with railways being central to industrial power. Now the colonized are civilized, are we the barbarians?

Unironically thinking like that is the real ape-brained behavior.

This reads different if the woman is an economist.

I feel like the preference space assumption was reasonable? Effectively asking "how important is x_i" for every issue i and then normalizing the result. Works at the limits, too, if something is considered infinitely important.

It does depend on how one asks about the preferences. Given a different question one might get a non-complete or non-transitive preference function. Also I think that if there were dependent preferences (e.g. more roads, but only if work-from-home isn't available) then that wouldn't be continuous? Cause the preference for one would jump with the sign change of the other. Continuity might even be harmful.

Honestly I just hate it because it's a rather unmathematical approach to say "voting is the problem" and not "our definition of fair voting is flawed."

Where is this from?

Or you could read the article and see that’s not even remotely the issue, and the title is as per usual misleading.

Germany planned 8 billion eur financial support for Ukraine this year. That’s been used up. So, no more monetary (!) aid unless they find some spare change in the budget, which they won’t.

And to preempt the next headline: Germany’s spending next year on Ukraine will be halved, yes… Because there’re plans for an international fund.

Also while “Olaf” is the one naying further spending, he’s not doing so independently of the ruling coalition. He has little agency.

Obligatory fuck Lindner and fuck the FDP.