jennegatron

I'm horde on Kargath! I do have an alliance character too on that server that's ~92.

He was in our hearts all along.

I love tabs.

http://www.dota2.com/international/announcement Direct invites and qualifier invites have gone out. Post Manila shuffles clearly having a real impact on invites.

Slacks is my hero, I adore him so much.

August's giveaway is Arceus. This one requires you going to gamestop, so you should do that if you're interested. If you missed the May giveaway of Darkrai, they will be sending it out via newsletter again for september http://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/back-in-pitch-black-darkrai-returns-for-a-short-time/

nice sailor mercury glass nerd.

Charlie Yang

The plan is that once they finish the Bureau of Balance & the relic reclamation that one of the other boys will take over GMing. Travis's (steampunk lovecraft?) episode is a bonus episode they did for the Max Fun Drive and it is currently under the donor exclusive bonuses.

This arc has been great. My absolute fave was the train mystery. I hope we get more Angus in the next arc.

https://twitter.com/patrickklepek/status/760864556759523328 Patrick Klepek @patrickklepek Could not be more excited to announce that, as of today, I'm joining @austin_walker at @VICEGaming as a senior reporter. Hell yes!

Make Idle Thumbs Great Again

Yeah, I wish the video had talked more about the strengths of FPTP (because literally every system is weak in some ways and strong in others). Ease of filling out ballots is huge. I took a mathematics of voting course in college and the professors talked about how more 'sophisticated' or complicated ballots were incorrectly filled out by faculty frequently because people don't want to listen to instructions. There's huge value in letting voters check a box or fill in a bubble.

Here you go! https://www.warbyparker.com/home-try-on?utm_source=IdleThumbs&utm_medium=Podcast&utm_content=Audio&utm_campaign=Summer2016&cvosrc=Podcast.IdleThumbs.Summer2016

Agreed Cordeos. A vote for Hillary that is "I support the democratic party platform" is indistinguishable from a Hillary vote that says "I'm just really scared of what Donald Trump will do" but I think they both communicate "I am voting for the candidate that I think a. should win and b. has a reasonable chance of winning." I would argue that when you vote for a 3rd party candidate there's more room for interpretation as to what that vote can mean.

1. If this is a zero sum game, isn't a vote for the first runner up the same as one for a third party candidate? I guess from a mathematical standpoint, yes. That would be accurate. A vote for the runner up is a vote for defeat, the same way any vote for a third party candidate would be. 2. what makes the first runner up somehow different than a third party candidate if we're going to judge votes based on the outcome of a zero sum contest? I would argue viability of candidacy. A voter who votes for the runner up is voting with the expectation there is a reasonable chance that their candidate of choice becomes President. They think they're voting for winning the election, which a voter for a 3rd party candidate almost certainly is not. 3. if I decide to vote for Johnson (effectively a vote for Hillary by this reasoning), and Hillary wins would my vote no longer be a protest vote? If I vote for Stein and Hillary wins, what is my vote then? Would my candidate no longer be a protest candidate? Yes it would be a protest vote, because your vote was still counted. You voted outside of the 2 party system and sent a message however minute that you preferred a 3rd party candidate for some reason that is known basically only to you. Your vote can be a protest vote and still contribute to the victory of one major party candidate over another. Still a protest vote! You may just be be happier with the outcome as a Stein supporter than a Johnson supporter if Hillary wins. 4. Let's say we had 3 major parties instead of 2, as has happened in a few elections. which one is running the spoiler candidate? I think it's pretty fair to say the candidate with the least votes would count as the spoiler. If that candidate did not exist those votes would instead be captured by one of the other 2 candidates (or wouldn't have been cast in the first place). There are 2 scenarios worth talking about in this case, I think: 1. The 3 candidates get a virtually even split of 34/33/33. The disappearance of candidate C would then reapportion their votes among the first 2 candidates allowing for one candidate to get a majority of the votes. Candidate C is a viable candidate in this case, but this scenario is fairly unlikely. This would likely cause a runoff election between b/c and then a/the winner of b/c. 2. The far more likely scenario where it is something like 40/40/20, where A & B have significantly more votes than candidate C. Candidate C would need to capture virtually all of the votes from either candidate A or B in order to win a majority of the votes in this scenario, whereas candidate A or B need only convince half (+1) of candidate C's voters to win the majority. If you want to use a different definition of spoiler, I would be very interested in hearing it, as I'm not married to my definition. Not yet at least, I'm still holding out for the slippery slope of marriage to fall that far. 5. which candidate would they be spoiling? I think the spoiler candidate doesn't necessarily spoil another candidate, it instead spoils the contest between the 2 primary candidates. It absorbs votes that would otherwise more cleanly decide elections. By voting for a 3rd party candidate you're no longer voting for who will win, but instead sending some other message. But because it's just a box you tick, there's no way of interpreting that message! It may be "I want this person to be our President." It may be "I want the Green Party to be eligible for public funding." It may be "This candidate most closely aligns with my ideological beliefs about how government should work." The ballot counters have no way of knowing what your motivation was in voting for a 3rd party candidate. I think it's useful to bring state into context like Cordeos does. Like Minnestoa or California are going to go blue, and pretty handily. There are things to be gained by voting for a 3rd party candidate in those places. You could legitimize the Green party by contributing to eligibility of public funding for them. I think that swing states whose electoral votes are truly up for grabs is the place that these conversations are interesting and meaningful. If someone lives in Ohio and votes for Johnson or Stein they are essentially saying "I want to let other people decide who will be President, and I have a reason." The problem is that only they know that reason, and it might not be a very good reason! That action has consequences, and it may be that the voter is okay with that. I don't think it ever hurts to ask why a person wants to vote the way they do. I do think that people try to scare other voters into voting the way they do, and that is frustrating, but I think it is important to think about the impacts of voting 3rd party in contested elections that have a lot on the line. The Republican and Democrats don't 'own' your vote, and you can allocate it however you see fit. I think there are (for me, personally compelling) arguments as to why you shouldn't vote third party in close races. (I do still think there are situations where a 3rd party candidate vote is beneficial, however.) By voting for a 3rd party candidate you're no longer voting for who will win, but instead sending some other message. But because it's just a box you tick, there's no way of interpreting that message! It may be "I want this person to be our President." It may be "I want the Green Party to be eligible for public funding." It may be "This candidate most closely aligns with my ideological beliefs about how government should work." The ballot counters have no way of knowing what your motivation was in voting for a 3rd party candidate.

I mean the purpose of an election is to pick who will hold that office, and by extension who you DON'T want in office. You want someone to win and someone to lose. Spoiler candidates are a weakness of first past the post elections. Since the first one to 50% + 1 vote wins, every vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the ultimate winner, essentially. It's a zero sum game and a vote for a third party candidate is a vote taken out of the pool of the 2 viable candidates. That's why it's a vote for the ultimate winner. I think people point this out as Stein being a vote for Trump because, in the event that Trump won, that would be true and I assume would be more upsetting to a Stein supporter than a Clinton win. It is trying to scare third party voters into voting for the major party candidate closest to them as to avoid a situation where they accidentally contribute to the victory of a candidate they would really regret having in office by remaining petty or ideologically pure. I quite literally asked what an individual's motivation for voting for a third party candidate was. Everyone brings their own mindset to how they approach voting. It may be that they want the party to get public funding. It may be pure spite and pettiness. I get that. I don't think it's unreasonable to interrogate those reasons though, and I think voting for a third party candidate in a presidential election is mostly asking for trouble.

We have a first past the post system that in its DNA restricts the number of viable candidates. Since our parties are really just coalitions of disparate groups, a 3rd party's platform will be adopted by one of the main 2 parties if it hits critical mass. Voting for a 3rd party candidate will not force a runoff election, it will mostly serve to take away votes from the candidate closest on the political spectrum to that 3rd party candidate. I think it's kind of irresponsible or naiive to think that a vote for Jill Stein in a swing state is much more than a protest vote that could end in the presidency of Trump. (Likewise a vote for Johnson and a presidency for Clinton.) Protest voting in states that are decided by significant margins, I can understand, swing states, less so. Like I said like 8 posts ago, vote in your down ticket races if you want to find the candidate closest to you in regards to policy. I think Clinton is an imperfect candidate, but the Democratic platform this year gives me hope. Legitimately. I would rather someone vote for Jill Stein and down ticket races, than not vote at all, but I would encourage them (and Johnson voters) to think about what it is they want to get out of that vote. Do they want to voice their discontent with the system? Is it because they feel that Stein/Johnson/another 3rd party candidate most accurately aligns with their personal policy beliefs? are they just mad that their candidate didn't win the party nomination?

^^Yuuup. like I get it. I do. Im not that excited about Hillary, but the sheer amount of unfettered oblivious privilege you need to have to have in order to look at Trump and Clinton and think "man they both suck" is so galling that I struggle to find words. Real people's lives would be measurably worse than they are now should Trump be elected. Like women going to jail for getting abortions for example. If Hillary isn't liberal enough for you, fine. whatever. But don't take your pettiness out on women, PoC and the lgbt community (heaven help anyone who falls into multiple of those categories) Vote in your down ticket races! Those races should actually matter the most to you, but don't delude yourself into thinking that voting for trump will blow up the system and everything will be better for it. Real people's lives will be without exaggeration destroyed by a Trump presidency.

I got a wii u for my birthday! I'm jennegatron : )

A couple months ago I watched a youtube video where Nick Robinson from polygon suggested viewers go follow him as curator on steam. Have you ever tried to look for a specific curator on Steam, even though you know exactly the username they use? I think it's the most broken ass, counter intuitive, non-user friendly experience I've had with a piece of modern software.

July's giveaway is Shaymin. You can get it via Nintendo network (when you start up, go to mystery gift and hit receive via internet).

Jay Tholen, who is occasionally around here, and is the mind behind Dropsy the Clown was a dedicated Klik n Play-er (Dropsy is my 2015 game of the year)

I think it's super cool that you do this Eric : )