The Unix team created Plan 9 to supercede it, so that's the logical choice. BeOS had a lot of fans, too.
(Completely unrelated, I just discovered that the Plan 9 logo bears a striking resemblance to the Go logo [see the Wikipedia link]. Given Rob Pike's influence, I'm sure that is not a coincidence.)
Oscar Music are looking for a talented ruby developer.
We provide a hosted music streaming service, web site and mobile apps for our customers to white-label. We do this with a lot of ruby code (but not really rails), mysql, puppet, debian, some couchdb, sphinx and git.
We work in Shoreditch, in an office with lots of character and friendly people. We get to work on interesting new tech and keep ourselves very busy. We're a small team, and there is a lot going on, so whatever your current skills, you'll definitely be learning new things here. We've also got some interesting new work in the pipeline.
If you are interested in finding out more, check out the job spec and the company at http://mediasp.com/jobs.html and please get in touch.
This probably sounds terrible, but if you are too "stupid/ignorant" to write your preferences in order 1-5, are you really competent enough to be voting?
I really don't expect there are many people (or any, I mean, really?) who are that stupid - that's just doesn't seem a valid reason to be against it.
If you just write "1" instead of an "X", it's exactly as easy as the current system.
Could you do it? Can you really think of anyone who couldn't do it? The entire tory party elected Cameron that way, it's not complicated at all. It does seem to be an effective scare tactic, though ;)
To quote Dara O Briain from twitter, "Listen, vote NO, if you're happy to trade lack of representation for a clear result. That's a perfectly fine choice to make. I respect that. But if you vote NO, because it's sounds complicated or you don't like Clegg, or the Irish are in debt, you're an idiot.
In Australia every polling booth has party volunteers handing out How To Vote flyers showing how they recommend you distribute your preferences. So if you like the Greens but don't really know where those two obscure independents fit in to the picture, you'd just follow their guidance on whether to put them at the top or the bottom of the list.
I suspect most Australians probably just follow their preferred candidates preferences.
Allocation of preferences is the mechanism that gives the smaller parties a say in the political process. The Greens (say) might know they have no chance of getting more than a couple of percent of the votes in a giving electorate, but they can do deals with the major parties based on that. e.g. "If renewable energy becomes a campaign promise, we'll direct our supporters to put you as their second preference."
I suspect most Australians probably just follow their preferred candidates preferences
Do they really? I never have, and I've never understood the mindset that would. Maybe I will vote for you, Mr Candidate, but I'm not gonna take your advice on the numbers I stick in everybody else's boxes... especially since those numbers probably indicate whatever deals you've made rather than some actual order of preferability based on competence or ideology. For this reason I've always thought that the whole preference-deal thing was a complete waste of time, but hey, maybe there's a lot of people out there genuinely following the how-to-vote card.
It hardly matters anyway. There's very few electorates with more than two viable candidates, so all that really matters is whether you put "Liberal" before "Labor" or vice versa.
The link says most people just go along party lines.
Even though in many electorates your vote will end up going to Liberal or Labor, the path it takes to get there is super important. That's kinda the point. If you think the environment is a really important issue, go vote Green because typically they'll have worked out a deal with one of majors to get some of their issues addressed.
You like smoking pot and there's a nutty local candidate who'll never be voted in in a million years and who none of the major parties will have bothered to do deals with? He's still worth a vote so that once the election is over the other candidates can see there's some people who consider it an important issue.
The entire beauty of preferential voting is it gives some voice to the other candidates in shaping policies, regardless of who gets in.
Fair enough. The other advantage is that it really does let us know when fringe candidates are fringe. If the nutty independent gets 3% of the vote then he can't say "I woulda got elected if it weren't for this damn two-party system"... we just look at him and say that, yep, he really is on the fringe.
Personally my strategy is to always vote number 1 for someone I'm pretty sure is going to get less than 4% of the vote. Why? Electoral funding rules. The government gives the parties money for their election campaigns based on how many votes they get. Except for folks who get less than 4% of the vote -- they get nothing. So if you vote 1 for a major party you're voting for taxpayer money to be given to political parties (yeech) but if you vote for some minor <4% nutjob then no money gets given on your behalf (hooray!)
Or so I've heard. I've never actually verified that this is true.
I'm also one of the few people who actually fills out every box below the line on the upper-house ballot sheets. A few years ago I think there were two hundred and something candidates, so I just wound up numbering consecutively in pretty spirals and so forth. Then I folded my ballot paper into a hat and wore it across the room to the box. They glared at me.
Perhaps this comes from living in the north, but the people I associated with are less sophisticated than you give them credit for. My wife has next to zero understanding about any of this and is not voting because she has no understanding of the issues involved. Ditto for my parents. And my in-laws.
Assuming that everyone's an intellectual and will research and consider the options and then make an informed choice is both idealistic and unrealistic. Many people have better things to do with their lives than thinking about politics and they're out there doing them. Making the voting process even more complicated is hardly going to compel them to get involved.
Well, that's a bit depressing. :/ But half my family live in the north, and I don't think you give them enough credit :)
Also, you seem to be talking about the decision making process of assessing whether to vote for AV or FPTP, not the not the complexity of voting using an AV system.
I'm not convinced that the AV voting method is too difficult to understand, though. Ranking things in order of preference is not hard for anyone to do. The finer points of the difference in electoral outcomes given different voting statistics might be more sophisticated, but that could be applied to any of the voting systems.
Voting itself though is no more complicated saying "I'll have a pint of Stella. If they don't have Stella, I'll have Fosters."
The No campaign has made the AV system out to be more complicated than it is as a scare tactic to put people off voting for it. That seems to have worked, which is deeply unfortunate, but indicative of political campaigns across the world. Fear and doubt are excellent motivators, and seem to be far more effective than a clear, reasoned and 'intellectual' argument.
Call me an unrealistic idealist, but I would much rather people research and consider the options before making an informed choice. Making a case for FPTP because it encourages more people who are uninformed and unconsidered to vote isn't going to win me over, though :)
However, as I say, the AV voting mechanism really isn't complicated at all - my wife is an early years teacher. Voting under an AV system is so easy that - literally - a five-year-old can understand it. I don't see anyone being put off by it.
Moreover, I think more people will be enthused by i) their ability to vote for the candidate that they believe in, ii) the greater accountability of their elected MPs to engage with their constituents and more accurately reflect their views and iii) their ability to express their opinions in a more meaningful way through the ballot box, that turnouts would be greater, not smaller.
Low turnout and voter apathy has a multitude of causes, but the ones that I hear most often are "lack of accountability" and "my vote doesn't count anyway."
>Firefox isn't Chrome -- it doesn't force you into its workflow or mode of thought.
Yes, it does, it's just a different mode of thought. Chrome is far less configurable than Firefox, and has some features than drive me mad - like the position of a newly opened tab.
> Plain text have no value if people writing and reading the specs are developers.
I disagree. Language shapes thinking to a certain degree, and Cucumber can help put yourself in a useful mindset for describing specs.
I think he has a point with the last comment though, most (though not all) of the benefit comes upfront. Mind you, that's the best place to have a benefit :)
To be fair, there is no magic in Rails, just a lot of 'defaults'. If you look at the code, its all very clear how those defaults are enabled, and there are clear methods for overriding them. The 'magic' thing started as a sort of marketing spiel to say "look at all these things that you don't need to worry about configuring, because they are all set to sensible defaults" but became 'mysterious' in some people's minds.
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
