The social contract of tolerance

??? Both options are the same thing tho?

Welcome to old.

Bing chat will do it

I nominate nix

Not sure I follow the "FPTP with layers" argument. After each layer, the votes go to the next choice rather than being wasted. Vote splitting gone. That's the bad part of FPTP taken care of. There's still one winner, but proportional voting is orthogonal to ballot type

And you only get final results when all counting is complete, but ballot counts could definitely be published as they come in (N ballots with order ABCD, M ballots with order DBA, etc)

I like ranked ballots more. Just a bunch of easy binary decisions of which candidate I like more. With the other ones, I feel like I'm betraying my favourite if I rank or approve of anyone else equally.

Simple fact of the matter is that that sounds really inconvenient, and needs justifying. If there are readily available biodegradable options right there, why on earth wouldn't you use them?

They are pretty convenient though. Are there any sustainable alternatives?

Like with straws, I know for fact that there are non-paper biodegradable ones.

Also, with discovery of plastic-eating bacteria, how is the definition of biodegradable shifting?

Edit: Obligatory mention of industry regulations being more effective in helping the environment

Same one as before I think.

Ah yes, but have you considered the gargantuan confirmation bias of anyone willing to map debunked wolf social dynamics onto humans?

Honestly, that feels like giving them too much credit. Chimps are fucking terrifying. The more I learn about them, the more I wonder "jesus fucking christ, how badass/insane was Jane Goodall?!". Those things are the closest things to real demons I've ever heard about.

Edit: well, aside from particularly unhinged humans

Chimpanzees do, though (source). and they're closer to humans than wolves.

The whole alpha wolf thing kind of sounds like projection.

If they're not stealing for money, supporting the black market, dying of overdoses, or spreading disease by sharing needles, and have consistent dosages and proximity to support programs, why quit?

Probably the massive social stigma and loss of positive effects due to built tolerance.

It would make the problem way less urgent at any rate.

(https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/opioids/responding-canada-opioid-crisis/safer-supply.html)

Giving addicts free drugs is a subset of harm reduction. Honestly, at this point in the discussion, we need numbers to be productive.

Common sense is extremely subjective.

Is it really more effective to not help addicts than to use harm reduction methods?

"Facts over feels" and all that.

Mandatory care has the same incentive against self reporting though?

Do we have any data on relapse rates from this vs non-mandatory methods? My guess would be high recidivism if the person is released back into the exact same circumstances in which they started using in the first place.

Do you have a source for that?

Exactly. They're addicted. They're going to get the drugs one way or another. May as well minimize the harm.

Permanently. And "quit" seems like too light a word for the herculean task of getting clean. They deserve all the help we can give. That it essentially removes all the negative externalities should make this a no-brainer.