This doesn't necessarily find the best parameters, and it doesn't necessarily do it easily. From my reading, it will converge on a local optimum, and it may take some time to do that.
In theory, I don't see why the kernel couldn't have a parameter-auto-tune similar to this. In practice, I think the kernel has to work in so many different domains, it'd be impossible to land on a "globally good enough" set of tuning heuristics.
I'm far from a kernel developer, so I'm ready to be corrected here.
IMO if we ever see something like this deployed widely, it will be because a popular distribution decided to install it by default.
I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I personally don't know anyone who strongly dislikes the US, and especially not US citizens.
The sentiment I personally hear when talking about the US (and, again, I don't speak for everyone) is more akin to the kind of sympathetic concern you might have for a friend who's become an alcoholic: It pains you to see them hurt themselves like that, but their temper flares when you suggest that maybe they drink just a little bit too much. But they can't be helped until they're ready to admit that they have a problem, unfortunately. So until then, all you can do is pray they don't crash when drunk driving.
Also from EU, additional tidbit: Not being a first-past-the-post two-party system allows for political parties to be more nuanced than a simplified left-right spectrum.
It depends on the country though. France is effectively first-past-the-post. Technically (rarely in practice) you can even get 3-4 candidates in the second round if the turnout is very high.
Two-round is not fundamentally a huge improvement and de facto is what US has with party primaries (of course unlike in France third parties can't really survive in such a system).
Arguably of course having a three way stalemate might be occasionally preferable than 1 party having near absolute control because of controlling 50%+1 seats.
Thankfully US has all sorts of checks and balances and it might take a while for a single party to get control of the House, Senate, White House and the Supreme court (for instance in the UK where there are basically no checks an balances and the parliament has absolute power if a pseudo-Fascist party somehow managed to win they could more or less do anything they wanted and they'd only need 30-40% of all votes for that).
IMHO electoral systems matter but extreme polarization is the real problem. Back in the 70s even a Republican president like Nixon could somewhat effectively work with the Democrat controlled congress. Yet now a split congress can't even pass legislation that technically both parties support (e.g. the border billy)
> Thankfully US has all sorts of checks and balances and it might take a while for a single party to get control of the House, Senate, White House and the Supreme court
The fact that "it is good when government is deadlocked and ineffective" is an actual argument people use is baffling to me, but for the sake of the argument and out of assumed mutual respect, I'll do my best to stay objective for following:
> IMHO electoral systems matter but extreme polarization is the real problem
I absolutely agree that extreme polarization is a major issue.
I believe that FPTP inevitably leads to extreme polarization, when given enough time: FPTP inevitably converges to a two-party system (due to strategic voting), and a two-party system inevitably leads to extreme polarization (due to strategic politicians playing into strategic voting).
The argument for the latter goes something like this: Disenfranchised voters can be coaxed to vote for a least-worst option when the most-worst option looks worse enough. So it becomes more politically effective to demonize your opponent rather than argue your own politics.
Additionally, it is politically beneficial for you when things stay bad while your opponent is in charge, and especially so if things get worse. You can use their perceived incompetence as ammunition to further demonize them. So it becomes beneficial to use what government power you might have in order to hinder your opponent's attempts at improving things, even if what they're trying to do is something you agree with and would yourself do if you were the one in power.
Depending on your preferred political party, I'm sure you can think of examples of the above.
> a two-party system inevitably leads to extreme polarization
There isn't much difference in practice. German politics is extremely polarized, far moreso than in the UK where there's FPTP. Look at how the older political parties have reacted to the rise of the AfD and you won't see any of the famed coalition building that's supposed to make PR fair and reasonable. Instead you see bizarre dysfunctional coalitions, lots of illegal suppression tactics and a level of hysterical rhetoric that makes the USA look relaxed by comparison. Nor is it different elsewhere in Europe.
The left reacts badly to conservative pushback in any system, any country, any culture. These things transcend national boundaries. It doesn't matter what voting system you use. The results are always the same.
> The fact that "it is good when government is deadlocked and ineffective" is an actual argument people use is baffling to me
I mean.. I don't think its good per se. Just better than the alternative in a society that's already extremely polarized and more or less evenly split. Unless that changes IMHO ideally we'd at least want as much decision making to move to the state level.
> I believe that FPTP inevitably leads to extreme polarization,
There aren't that many datapoints e.g. it hasn't yet happened in Britain (it sort of did in France, although it's more complicated) and I'm not that sure it was entirely true even in the US between 1940 and 1980 either. So I think its hard to prove empirically.
> So it becomes beneficial to use what government power you might have in order to hinder your opponent's
Is it radically different in multiparty systems, though? If you are outside the government coalition you have similar incentives.
I wonder how effective would the Northern Ireland consensus/power-sharing based system if it became more widespread. On one hand it did seemingly led to a huge reduction in political polarization. On the other hand it's not particularly efficient and it's unlikely that any country would implement outside of extreme circumstances/being force to by a third party (unlike in Lebanon where it has failed entirely the conflict in NI was entirely political rather than religious)
Granted, I don't follow it closely, but from what discourse I've observed things on the other side of the pond don't seem quite harmonious to me.
> I'm not that sure it was entirely true even in the US between 1940 and 1980 either.
Which does not necessarily disprove the argument. Things were arguably less polarized and better working in the past, but my argument is exactly that the political incentives of a two-party system will eventually cause things to degenerate. The fact that things were once "reasonable politics" but have, over the course of decades, degenerated to "our policy is whatever is the opposite of their policy" is exactly the issue.
> Is it radically different in multiparty systems, though? If you are outside the government coalition you have similar incentives.
Similar, yes, but not necessarily the most effective political move.
If a disenfranchised voter can vote for a third (or fourth) party without their vote "being wasted", a strategizing disenfranchised voter no longer "has" to vote for a "least-worst" option in order to avoid the "most-worst" option.
In that case, painting your opponent as "even worse" does not necessarily win you votes. If it does, it likely also gives votes to the other parties in your political sphere, and if they get enough votes to make a coalition government without you, why should they bother to include someone whose primary policy is being a troublemaker?
---
To be clear, no system is perfect. I don't know what the best is, I just know it's not FPTP. The primary argument I am trying to make is that the polarization we see now is the inevitable (long-term) outcome of a two-party system, and that a two-party system is the inevitable outcome of winner-takes-all FPTP.
A woman who's worried about getting pregnant can monitor her period and take an abortion pill if it's late. A man, on the other hand, can do nothing to avoid the cost of a child besides trying to persuade her. There are women who try to get pregnant against their partner's wishes.
My point is the woman can shut the door and the horse magically teleports back into the stable but the man can't. So men can benefit from being in control of their own fertility.
And that is the reason male birth control most likely will never replace the other variants. Which woman wants to rely on the man taking care of birth control?
One that trusts her partner? What kind of question is this.
I can't imagine my long term partner, now fiancee, wouldn't trust me with something so important to us both. Why even be in a relationship at this point.
one in a stable long-term relationship where she and her partner trust each other to be responsible when it comes to risky or costly actions that impact both of them
(pregnancy is one, sure, but there's also things like blowing half your yearly salary on a sports car on a whim)
And, as we all know, becoming a father when you do not wish to is completely without consequences, making the entire ordeal risk-free. Male birth control pill is useless, QED.
Maybe that combined with the fact that Russia actively invaded another country for bullshit reasons means we don't want to point fingers at Russia without solid evidence, lest they use it to invent yet another bullshit reason to invade, I don't know, Sweden?
That specific reasoning is also bordering on conspiracy, but my point is that I don't think it's suspicious that countries aren't pointing fingers at Russia without solid evidence.
Who has profited the most from the Nordstream pipelines destruction?
The USA.
That's not a conspiracy, its a fact. The profits are evident and very, very real.
> bullshit reasons
What isn't bullshit is that the western military junta propagating this conflict has absolutely no problems spreading fallacies about Russia without producing any evidence whatsoever - this is a standard operating procedure for war-profiteers who seek to profit from our hatred, which they foment..
And now, with these investigations closing down, there will be no further evidence presented, and people can continue to spread false claims about who their favourite badguy is, and what they did to the pipeline .. this is probably by design.
Meanwhile, Europe has suffered economic impacts as a result of this attack on its infrastructure. Perhaps the reason European politicians are closing these investigations down so hard, is that they just don't have courage to confront the fact of their betrayal by an ally - or even worse, provide evidence of this to their voting public ...*
If you want to split hairs about exact terminology, then /reasons/casus belli/. I hope we don't disagree that their "denazification" story is bullshit.
Are the 10 biolabs that were built in Ukraine close to the border with Russia, starting in 2014 - with the explicit purpose of researching gain of function on coronaviruses and targetted genotypes as part of the CIA's PREDICT program - also bullshit, in your opinion?
Because, in spite of your opinion, its not bullshit.
What would the USA do if Mexico or Canada were suddenly sprouting up clandestine bio-warfare laboratories, funded by Russia or China, within miles of its border? What would Israel do if Iran had funded similar biolabs on its borders with Egypt or Jordan?
Being out of things to investigate is a reason to end investigation. It is possible to follow all leads to the end and still have no conclusive evidence.
Well the kicker here, is that the process is not inefficient. It's just efficient for someone other than your average person. If anything, for the people that care and can do something about it, the process is inefficient in the opposite direction -- it's not bleeding as much money from the consumer as it could be.
In theory, I don't see why the kernel couldn't have a parameter-auto-tune similar to this. In practice, I think the kernel has to work in so many different domains, it'd be impossible to land on a "globally good enough" set of tuning heuristics.
I'm far from a kernel developer, so I'm ready to be corrected here.
IMO if we ever see something like this deployed widely, it will be because a popular distribution decided to install it by default.