triadruid: Apollo and the Raven, c. 480 BC , Pistoxenus Painter  (Default)
OpenOffice Base is twitchy.

Anybody got a licensed copy of Access 2k lying around??
triadruid: Apollo and the Raven, c. 480 BC , Pistoxenus Painter  (Default)
So, triadruid, your LiveJournal reveals...



You are... 9% unique (blame, for example, your interest in wild hares) and 13% herdlike (partly because you, like everyone else, enjoy tattoos). When it comes to friends you are popular. In terms of the way you relate to people, you are keen to please. Your writing style (based on a recent public entry) is conventional.

Your overall weirdness is: 36

(The average level of weirdness is: 27.
You are weirder than 77% of other LJers.)


Find out what your weirdness level is!








Which reminds me, I need to post something about Summer Solstice...
triadruid: Apollo and the Raven, c. 480 BC , Pistoxenus Painter  (Default)
I mean, here's a fun interactive meme, based on the Golden Compass film that's coming out later this year (which I haven't read the books to):



Incarnations so far: ocelot, domestic cat, lynx, ocelot, domestic cat, lynx, ocelot... I'm going in circles here, kids. Oops, just changed myself to an ermine by agreeing with almost everything. WTF? And now back back to ocelot, then domestic cat...heh. It's like a feline carousel.

P.S. In some ways, the website version is more interesting, because it tells you how many times you've changed.
triadruid: Apollo and the Raven, c. 480 BC , Pistoxenus Painter  (Default)
Yep, I'm old. (link to article about high pitched sound young people can hear more often than old)

::edit:: Also, the State of Decrepitude around here is apparently the National Catholic Reporter. Hmmmm....

::further edit:: Also, fabulous new icon by [livejournal.com profile] wildnsquirelly! *grin*
triadruid: Apollo and the Raven, c. 480 BC , Pistoxenus Painter  (Default)
Something to keep you busy on a Monday, if you need that sort of thing.

From the site:
The Johari Window was invented by Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingram in the 1950s as a model for mapping personality awareness. By describing yourself from a fixed list of adjectives, then asking your friends and colleagues to describe you from the same list, a grid of overlap and difference can be built up.
Input your views to my Johari window

Now do the same with the Nohari window, a variant that looks at the antonyms of the mostly-positive traits given in the first.

Should be interesting...by the by, I think I finally answered everyone who posted it last week, at least those I knew well enough to try.
triadruid: Apollo and the Raven, c. 480 BC , Pistoxenus Painter  (Default)
A couple of people have made mention of their "morning routines" here on LJ and elsewhere, and I thought it'd be fun to see how different people's "startup sequence" is. I was going to make it a poll, but after experience with leaving options off of a poll for teh City recently, I'll make it open-ended instead.

By way of example, some of the systems that come online in the morning, in no particular order, are: Sex Drive, Hunger, Curiosity, Obligation/Duty, Pain, Parental, Excretory, Vision, Balance, and Internal Music Player. I'll add more as people mention them. :)
triadruid: Apollo and the Raven, c. 480 BC , Pistoxenus Painter  (Default)
So picture this: it's a cold, dark winter evening, and the entire Entropic Trinity is cuddling in one bed. What might they be up to? If you guessed, "Devising stupid metrics for unlikely measurement scales?", you'd be right!

It was actually surprisingly easy to come up with the top end of the scale, though we faltered a bit on the low end.

Weirder than thou )
Alterations and additions are of course welcome. There are also factors that give or reduce points on the scale, but they are a Closerly Guarded Secrit™ (i.e. we haven't finished the list yet). [livejournal.com profile] kittenpants posits that there is a quiz lurking in here somewhere, crying out to be made.
triadruid: Apollo and the Raven, c. 480 BC , Pistoxenus Painter  (Default)
Note: I in no way expect this to be an actual commentary on or "alternate version" of the national election. I expected to have the analysis run before Nov. 2nd, but was too busy to actually post it. It's not a scientific sample like a poll; but then, voting is inherently "opt-in" for our country, so I'm not entirely concerned about that either. I was more interested in playing with the mechanics of a Condorcet decision in a real-world scenario.

So where did the data come from? )

Here's the breakdown in pairwise fashion:
OptionCDGLNRS
Constitution0525333607666
Democratic121010799112126135
Green985308087108114
Libertarian1187985097132112
Nader, Ralph92505065010799
Republican6547583360068
Socialist7527265244810

Unsurprisingly for the LiveJournal demographic, Kerry/Edwards was the overall winner (yellow 'win' boxes across the line). There was no need for a cyclic ambiguity resolution, as Kerry won in all direct pairings. This is what I think is a clear benefit to the Condorcet system; it unequivocally resolves voter preferences and removes even the effect of 'strategic' voting from the equation. Not voting for your 'lukewarm' choice has *zero* effect on your primary choice's chances, but it can hamper the possibility of your secondary candidate beating someone you really despise, since they get equivalent losses marked down. Voting sincerely benefits you in Condorcet.

This becomes more obvious from the second place finisher: Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party. Not GWB, who actually finishes dead last in Condorcet pairing, even behind the Socialists and the Constitution Party. I thought this was bizarre, until I remembered that the Constituion Party is probably what the Republicans currently aspire to: small government with social norms defined by the Bible. Given the choice, people ranked them *almost* equally (look at the 1st and 6th lines of the table, showing their wins), but given the choice between the two, Constitution won 76-65.

A few more observations )
triadruid: Apollo and the Raven, c. 480 BC , Pistoxenus Painter  (Default)
Thanks to input from [livejournal.com profile] lysana and others, I have revamped the Condorcet voting poll I posted a few days ago. As before, feel free to cross-post this to your own journal or appropriate communities to increase the sample size; despite being self-selected, I hope it will be useful to show any flaws in the Condorcet voting system. I am particularly interested in how unusual voting patterns such as ties and partial ballots affect the total result.

Explanation of Condorcet voting, and links to party/candidate websites )

The candidates are listed in alphabetical order by party; this seemed the fairest option. You may rank candidates as ties if you wish, or refuse to rank certain candidates at all (thereby assigning them a rank of '8', effectively). If you choose one and only one candidate, your vote will have exactly the same effect as the current single-choice system; I don't want to discourage this, as I am curious as to what effect it will have. At the conclusion of the poll (sometime before November 1st) I will tabulate the results of the pairings and the eventual winner.

::edit:: Results of the quiz (I've left a link up in case you want to run your own analysis) can now be found here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/triadruid/84347.html
triadruid: Apollo and the Raven, c. 480 BC , Pistoxenus Painter  (Default)
So a thread in [livejournal.com profile] diermuid's journal has made me think about the way we run elections in this country (I'd like to say it was due to [livejournal.com profile] lulumay's candidate for office, but I hadn't noticed her journal yet). I had become a recent fan of the Instant Runoff Voting system, but upon further inspection it seems to have some Seriously Weird™ problems, like lowering someone's ranking causing them to win, etc.

In the process I came across something called Condorcet voting. Initially this looked complicated as all Hel (pairwise voting? matrices in the ballot-box?), but then I actually found a site that would explain it here.

And then there's this essay on mathematical models of different voting systems, which just makes my little geek heart flutter, and this election site where you can set up your own Condorcet election.

Initial reactions:

  • Condorcet seems to gravitate toward a central, compromise candidate. It does mathematically seem to pan out from the brief looking-over I've given it.


  • Instant Runoff seems to gravitate toward polarizing, highly partisan candidates. However because of the mathematical idiosyncracies, it's hard to tell what's strategy and what isn't.


  • I'd like to try it out sometime, whether it be a computer simulation or an actual election (could use the site above). Unfortunately most of the elections I usually can operate some control over (even straw polls) are too small to give a meaningful sample, and I don't have the time to code a simulation right now...


  • And look: Now there's a simulation going based on the 2004 election! Go vote Condorcet-style!


  • Any system we go for has to be simple, or our voting percentages will go down further. Either of these satisfy that, by doing all of the calculating behind the scenes, leaving the voter only needing to rank before the algorithms are applied.


  • All of this is moot anyway, since Americans will never choose something created by a Frenchman in this day and age! :P


  • Maybe we can call it the Concordant Voting system, which is what my brain keeps trying to call it anyway...


    • Anyone else heard of this, or have mathematical/political/psychological/sociological/theological input?

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 123 456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 06:09 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios