No, it's really not hurting them. Or at least, if it is, this study isn't in any way proof that it is: Source

Why does Microsoft still sell 32 bit versions of Windows? Because there is a demand for it. Some customers have a need for a 32 bit version of the OS, for either legacy hardware or software (or both). I don't work at Microsoft, but I would guess that the demand for a 32 bit version of the software is greater than the cost of producing and maintaining it. Therefore, they sell it.

As the market for a 32 bit version of their OS dwindles, it will probably be retired when they don't make money by selling it. Until then, I would guess that they will keep producing it, since they want to, you know, make money by selling a product that people want to buy.

It makes sense. Most of the 'news' outlets (Fox News, CNN, etc) report news and reaction from the most extreme, biased, and ridiculous viewpoints. The narrative is controlled from the extremes, which does not represent the views of almost anyone. Slashdot, aka News for Nerds, posts a 'story' that is intended to get people from 2 sides of an issue to yell at each other. The Apple haters will post stuff about how people must be idiots for buying Apple, and the Apple zealots will yell back.

The entire story is flawed. The majority of people who use Apple products also use other products as well. The premise that "many Apple users would never dream of switching to a non-Apple product" is ridiculous. But hey, it should start a flame war, generate clicks from people who just want to watch the train wreck, so it gets posted.

The larger problem is that you are inflating the income of *some* members of a group. This means that the overall average income of the people in this group will be slightly higher, but most people in the group will be unchanged. Given that the percentage of people getting this income is low, the overall effect will be minimal. This is not indicative of what would happen with inflation for basic goods and services if this were applied to everyone.

As the above post says, this test will not show long term effects on attitudes or consequences. I would add that given the scope, it would also probably not show accurate results on short term effects either.

Seriously, I shouldn't bother posting in political threads. The butt hurt is so strong, I only ever get modded down, despite not trying to troll, but simply not repeating the same line as everyone else. But I'm a glutton for punishment, so I'll bite, again.

The "whole point" of the electoral college is not to block a winner that the college doesn't like. The main effect has always been to elevate the voice of lower population centers. It was clear, even at the start of the country, that more rural areas of the country, while being lower in population, need to have a way to have their voice heard, and their interests protected. The electoral college provides votes for states based on population, but gives a larger voice to the smaller population states. While it is true that states like Florida, California, and New York have very large populations and therefore more electoral votes, the voice of those states alone cannot dictate the course of the country.

But whatever... I'm sure I'm just an ignorant troll, so mod me down accordingly.

The electoral college were the agreed upon rules of the competition, before the competition started. If enough people dislike the system, it can be changed. However everyone who was running for president knew all the rules before the votes were cast. Asking to go back and change the rules based on the results is never a good idea.

I can only imagine the outcry, if HRC had won and the republicans were asking to ignore the votes of Americans, because they voted incorrectly. Seriously, the people who were honestly hoping that the electoral college voters would ignore the votes of the people of their states, and simply disenfranchise however many million voters it would take, just so they can get their way?

I personally think Trump will be a horrible, horrible president. I cannot imagine any good coming from his presidency. The world climate alone may never recover. My only hope is that he will do something that can get him impeached relatively quickly, before too much damage can be done. Having said that, I still cannot understand the thought process behind attempting to tell 50% of the country, "your vote doesn't count, unless you vote the way you are supposed to". If that actually happened, the utter and complete demise of any semblance of democracy in the USA would have happened, and there would either be a) a revolt, or b) a new, non-democratic country.

Yes, they will, but that's not really a bad thing. You can give accurate results well before the 99% mark in almost every election. Certain districts have a very repeatable voting pattern (meaning a district will vote nearly all republican or democrat in every election), and you can get voter turn out numbers well before results are counted. In addition, polling data, exit polls, and statistics can give you a prediction, and if the first 15% of the results are following the pattern, you can say with a reasonable amount of mathematical certainty that the rest of the results will follow. As most races are not decided by only a few hundred votes, it's not even an interesting math problem...

As long as the results are not posted until after everyone has had a chance to vote, it really doesn't matter. Google (or anyone) could wait until 30 minutes after the polls close, and no one is left in line, and declare that New York has been won by Jill Stein. While that would almost certainly be incorrect, it wouldn't impact the results of the election, as no one is still voting. It would make for an interesting night of TV, but otherwise, who cares what the result predictions are? The only thing that matters is what is certified by the state official in charge of certifying elections.

Although the practice has been stopped after the 2000 election, it used to be common place for network television to call results of elections before the polls even closed. This was done based entirely on exit polls and previous polling data. After the debacle in the 2000 election where Florida was called for Bush (before the polls closed), then back to undecided (I think after the polls closed), then to Bush again, then (if I remember correctly) Gore, the Easter Bunny, Elmer Fudd, and finally, "we have no idea"... all of which left a bunch of people very upset before they even got into the issues of the "butterfly ballot".

Google can have the same data that the networks used to have, but can wait to post it until 1 second after the polls close. Which is technically following the rules, but is still a bad idea. One of the main issues that people had in Florida was that the state was called while the western part of the state still had polls open, and some reports surfaced of people leaving the polls and going home after the state was called, since their vote didn't matter any more. You can debate the validity of those reports, but it is possible that people could still be in line at polls after the closing time, and see the results on their phones leading to exactly the same issue as 2000. In more contested districts, it is more common to have longer lines at the polls, which can mean that people technically vote after the poll close times, if they arrived before that time. People waiting in line and giving up based on speculated information, like what Google will be providing, is exactly what happened before.

Wow, I will try to respond rationally. According to all polls, the margin between Hillary and Trump is within a few percentage points. While I am not a fan of either candidate, I do feel that the country would be far, far worse off if Trump is elected. If I vote for a third party candidate, I am giving up the small voice I have to try to block Trump.
The current system we have for voting in the United States is a first past the post election system. To understand why I (and others) mathematically can't vote for third parties without hurting themselves, I refer you to this video.

I hope that will help you understand why I would vote for a candidate I don't love, over one I detest. Or you can continue in your ignorance to consider me a "fucking asshole", and go about your day.

I'm sorry. For the sake of brevity, I did not provide a detailed list of all the things Donald Trump has said or done that in my opinion make him a worse option. I will refrain from doing so now, but if you would like a list, I refer you to anything Trump has said, ever. Full stop.

I do not believe that voting for the only viable candidate that is not named Trump is "abject stupidity", merely the only rational choice in a very distressed election cycle.

The report generated by the FBI regarding their investigation of Clinton was worse than this. The responses to direct questions made HC look at the very best completely incompetent.

Having said that, I would vote for Hillary Clinton even if you could prove that she was a functional illiterate who's only thought processes centered around how to break the law. That option would still be miles ahead of the competition.

It's meant to make your apartment feel bigger on the inside than it is on the outside... so it folds space and time. Sort of. Well not really folds, simply occupies a time and relative dimension in space, but that acronym was taken.

My first thought would be not entirely, although it would make life simpler. The signal will be seen directly, and from reflections from the ground (or in this case roof). You would limit the reflections from nearby walls, interruptions due to cover (like trees), etc. and the reflections would be fairly constant. It would not eliminate them, however.

The link in the article, to here, gives a much better description of the SP algorithm. In fact, it's a much more informative article, but it doesn't have a picture of a guy with a cell phone strapped to his face.