Okay, they messed up something here. The number of little ASCII-art person squares depends on the size of your browser window. The squares get smaller when you make the window narrower, so it looks like it was coded to try to keep the number roughly constant.
If I make the window narrow enough, there are 10 squares in a row and 19 rows, a total of 190 squares. The number that are coloured "very conservative", "conservative", "centrist", "liberal", "very liberal", respectively, are 39, 67, 24, 31, 29.
It's weird that the number of squares increases and decreases when you resize the window, and I would argue it's misleading because there's an animated transition that is obviously meaningless. But it's a lot worse that the proportions aren't consistent! All of us saw exactly 39 in the "very conservative" category, so maybe it is failing to proportionally scale that category while scaling the others?
Conclusions:
1. There's a programming bug that misrepresents the proportions.
2. The sample is significantly skewed toward conservatives.
Great work... I thought I noticed something similar on the resizing. I guess they prioritized looks over accuracy which is kind of fair although its not obvious why they would have to do it this way.
In any case, it would be good to see the actual data for this stuff.
The weakness of formal verification systems is that they turn the problem of writing correct programs into the problem of writing correct specifications, which is just as difficult, while adding extra layers of complexity. How do your tools address this difficulty?
Wow, that's a massive blind spot you've got there.
The value comes from doing the thing. Fixing the tractor creates value. Growing and harvesting the potatoes creates value.
Trading the potatoes for something you value more, yes, also creates additional value. But notice that potatoes have value to you even if you don't trade them for anything.
If you choke on a grape and a helpful volunteer saves your life, they create value. Nothing was exchanged, but they sure as hell generated wealth right there.
Labour and voluntary trade both create value. I wonder what sort of mindset one must have to forget that labour exists.
Also wrong. You can always destroy value by making a mistake. Trading and then realizing you made a mistake, just like investing labour and then realizing you made a mistake, does not create value. Trading is not special in this regard.
Value can be created either way: through labour or trade.
Regardless, your statement that all wealth is created by trade is false.
Regulation doesn't have to be at the level of controlling how technology is designed. It can be more creative, at the level of organizations or incentives, for example:
- Require advertising companies to follow special rules, including only doing advertising and nothing else
- Fund an agency that measures the health harms of large platforms and imposes fines or restrictions based on harm
I'm confused. Would the start ever have to be truly black? Wouldn't water always be driving hydroelectric turbines, generating some electricity? Solar panels generate electricity without requiring input. I understand that synchronizing AC is not trivial, I'm only questioning the part about whether the start is truly black.
This is really cool! How did you select the languages to support? I was surprised that you included Finnish and German yet excluded Swedish (the language I would want to use), and I'm wondering what the blockers are for the other Nordic languages.
Huge, wildly irregular word gaps, awkward hyphenation, stacked hyphen breaks.
I suspect most of this could be improved simply by letting go of the slavish attachment to full justification and expanding the column to a more reasonable width by reducing the font size and margins.
I'll never build a lie into my work. It's not worth it.