The actual story of the money changers is worse than most people know.

See, as part of their religious observance, the ancient Hebrews made a pilgrimage to the Temple. This was a mandatory part of their faith, much like the Hajj is for modern Muslims.

Those who were too poor to bring their own sacrifice could buy one at the Temple, but the Temple didn’t take the coin of the realm (the Roman coins), they only accepted Shekels.

So, the Money Changers. They set up in the Temple itself and were fleecing pilgrims of all their money.

In comes Jesus, who flipped tables and broke out the whip, and less than a week later he was crucified.

And this is the only part of the bible that I believe is 100% historically accurate. A peace loving Rabbi threw a fit over the Money Changers and was crucified for it.

Do people in glass houses shit in the woods?

I would love a storyline where Luther claims to be Ceaser, but is shown to be more akin to Nero.

Superman of the comics (from about the mid-80s onward) would tell the military, politely, to go find a location to fornicate with themselves.

Also the animated Superman. He took would tell them to go fuck themselves. Neither one would actually curse.

That being said, both incarnations would put the fire out, if only to prevent environmental damage.

Possibly by dropping a large block of ice on the building.

Collaborative world building often falls apart. It needs a full time coordinator, or it’s like herding cats.

By a worm no less.

Not everything shot for a film gets used. The director might say, “let’s reshoot the scene with wardrobe B” and then you have a new take with a different outfit.

Simple scenes like that often take a few days of work to dial in just right. Or sometimes it’s done with a single take and everyone feels vaguely off about it until they see the edit.

A production of The Producers. Singing Springtime for Hitler.

Israel has a complex relationship with Nazis.

During WW2, the Lehi terrorist organization actually tried to join in the war on the side of the Nazis.

One of the men behind this initiative went onto become prime minister of Israel in the early 1980s.

The Lehi terrorist organization folded into the IDF in 1949.

Now, there was a philosopher who was a member of Lehi, he took Nazi ideology and sort of swapped master race and the undesirable race. God’s chosen people had to be the master race, and the Arabs who lived in on the land were declared to be undesirable.

As a note, the Lehi prime minister was Netanyahu’s political mentor.

I seriously believe that wealth factors into weather or not you’re considered low or high functioning.

Take someone who is low functioning and make them stupidily rich and suddenly they’re treated like they aren’t on the spectrum at all.

Based actually comes from freebased. Which is what you do to cocaine to make it crack.

Based used to mean something cringe worthy until the rapper Lil B started using it in a positive context.

Now it’s sort of the opposite of cringe.

Spouses can move to the village, it’s just that the children never leave.

At least one parent was born in the village.

The thing is, Left vs Right is already a measure of authoritarian vs Democratic.

The original use of the terms comes from the French Revolution. There was a vote on if the King should have an absolute veto over laws passed by the assembly. Those who said no sat to the left of the Speakers podium. Those who said yes sat on the right.

The reason why left and right were applied to economic policy was because Marx described Communism as a form of extreme Democracy. Whereas Capitalism concentrates power into the hands of a select few.

It’s still a measure of where the power rests. In the hands of the people or the hands of the state/leader.

You can break it down to dozens of categories, but it’s all authoritarian vs Democratic in the end.

As a note, Lenin style single party “communism” is about as far from Marx’s ideal as you can get.

Dictators and Kings are all the enemies of the people.

Ah yes, the Noem Chomsky. Famously when he was defending Pol Pot’s regime.

Ah, Cato the Elder. He had a good cheesecake recipe, but was otherwise a complete jackass.

It’s quite a bit less functional. There have been dozens of high profile outages and service interruptions.

The first article is from someone who wants to save RCV, despite that one flaw that they’ve drilled into.

The problem is that it’s a known attack vector, the Wikipedia article talks about how it was used intentionally by a political party in 2005 in Germany to effectively steal an additional seat in their parliament.

My second link is a deeper dive into more of RCV’s many flaws. Because why stop at monotonicity? Seriously, the fact that increasing support can cause a candidate to lose, and not just lose but elect the worst choice, is insane.

That fact that there are more flaws, just as game breaking, means we should all follow the example of the Marquis de Condorcet, the guy who invented RCV, abandoned it because he saw how broken it was.

Then you have the lying liars at FairVote saying that the Condorcet criterion doesn’t matter in elections.

The Condorcet criterion is that if you were to hold a series of one on one elections between all candidates, the winner of those should be the same winner of your election system. RCV fails this in most elections, which is why Condorcet abandoned it.

It wasn’t until about 30 years after Condorcet’s death that an Englishman revived the voting method, but added a proportional twist. It still had all the flaws that Condorcet wrote about, but Condorcet was French, and lost the political games of the French Revolution, so he was mostly ignored.

As a side note, the political writings of Condorcet should be required reading. The guy wrote this in 1790

‘The rights of men stem exclusively from the fact that they are sentient beings, capable of acquiring moral ideas and of reasoning upon them. Since women have the same qualities, they necessarily also have the same rights. Either no member of the human race has any true rights, or else they all have the same ones; and anyone who votes against the rights of another, whatever his religion, colour or sex, automatically forfeits his own.’

https://medium.com/@Gbgrow/understanding-non-monotonicity-in-ranked-choice-voting-and-how-to-prevent-it-55ad54fdad06

https://electionscience.org/research-hub/the-limits-of-ranked-choice-voting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_responsiveness_paradox#Specific_examples

We’ve seen it happen in actual elections, as shown in the Wikipedia link.

RCV is just a flawed system, which is expected for something created by a couple of guys 150+ years ago.

IRV, or RCV as it’s being sold here, has a lot of problems.

It’s the only voting system in existence where ranking someone higher on the ballot can cause them to lose the election.

Australia gets around most of the problems of IRV by just not telling people any information about the vote except the winners.

Also you only use straight IRV for a single part of your government.

The US would use it for every part of our government. It would be a shit show.

Which is why RCV has been banned in half a dozen states.

Now, there are better voting systems. Systems that live up to the hype.

STAR is the single best voting system designed to date.

As a cardinal voting system, it’s actually immune to the Spoiler Effect.

Ethanol is incredibly inefficient as a fuel source.

If not for the massive subsidies it would not exist.

Still, ethanol is a better fuel additive than lead. (Both reduce knocking)

Still, the far better use is to grow food.