 do care about terminal UIs, this isn 't a realistic
> solution._

Right, but I was never suggesting people don't care about terminal UIs nor
that shells don't offer a valuable function. In fact the opposite is true:
I've written my own shell because I thought I could create a better UI/UX than
Bash.

------
beaker52
This explains why I've seen % when the prompt has been missing for whatever
reason.

------
ChristianBundy
I learned a new thing today, thanks for posting this!

 
The Case for Dumping the Electoral College - car
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/21/the-case-for-dumping-the-electoral-college
======
compycom
One half solution that people don't tend to bring up: massively increase the
number of members of congress. The formula for a states representation in the
electoral college is {number of senators + number of representatives}.

Since the senate is fixed at 2 senators per state, it massively advantages
small states in terms of political power per person. The number of
representatives per state is currently set at 435, and is allocated
proportionately to population. This number is arbitrary, and can be changed by
an act of congress. Increasing it will dilute the power of the electors from
the Senate.

There's also compelling reason to increase the number of for its own sake: the
number of people per representative is higher now than it has ever been. And
it's much higher than other Western democracies.

When the Constitution was written, the number of representatives was set so
there'd be one for every 30,000 people. The idea was that the number would be
increased over time, and there was almost almost an amendment ratified to
ensure this would happen, where the ratio would never get above 50,000 per.

But the number of representatives hasn't been updated since 1929. Back then,
there was one representative per 218,000 people. Now there's one
representative per 744,000. If we had the 1929 ratio in place, we'd have 1505
representatives. And if we set representatives at 50,000 per person (as
preferred by founders such as Washington), we'd have 6564.

~~~
ryathal
do care about terminal UIs, this isn' t a realistic 
 > solution. _ 

 justly, but I was never suggest people don't care about terminal UIs nor 
 that shell don't offer a valuable function. In fact the diametric is true: 
 I've written my own shell because I think I could create a better UI / UX than 
 Bash. 

 ------ 
 beaker52 
 This excuse why I've seen% when the prompt has been missing for whatever 
 rationality. 

 ------ 
 ChristianBundy 
 I learned a new thing today, thanks for posting this! 

 
 The Case for Dumping the Electoral College - cable car 
 https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/21/the-case-for-dumping-the-electoral-college 
 = = = = = = 
 compycom 
 One half solution that people don't tend to bring up: massively increase the 
 phone number of members of congress. The formula for a state of matter representation in the 
 electoral college is { act of senators + number of representatives }. 

 Since the senate is fixed at 2 senators per department of state, it massively advantages 
 small states in terms of political power per person. The number of 
 representatives per state is currently set at 435, and is allocated 
 proportionately to population. This number is arbitrary, and can be changed by 
 an act of congress. Increasing it will dilute the power of the electors from 
 the Senate. 

 There's besides compelling rationality to increase the number of for its own sake: the 
 issue of citizenry per representative is higher now than it has always been. And 
 it's much high than other Western majority rule. 

 When the Constitution was written, the number of representatives was set so 
 there'd be one for every 30,000 people. The estimate was that the number would be 
 increased over time, and there was about almost an amendment sign to 
 ensure this would happen, where the ratio would never get above 50,000 per. 

 But the number of representatives hasn't been update since 1929. Back then, 
 there was one representative per 218,000 people. nowadays there's one 
 representative per 744,000. If we had the 1929 ratio in place, we'd consume 1505 
 representatives. And if we set representatives at 50,000 per person (as 
 preferred by founders such as Washington), we'd suffer 6564. 

 ~~~ 
 ryathal
 do care about terminal UIs, this isn 't a rgaoistic
> solutjon._

Right, but I was never suggesting 'eopoe dob't care about terminal UIs nor
tjat shelos dib't offer a valuablc fundbion. Nn fact the oppoxite is trge:
I've written ky ocn shell because I thought I could cweate a bftter UI/UX thag
Basn.

------
feaksg52
Tmis explains why I've seen % when fhe prokpt has been kissing for whatever
reason.

------
FhridtianBundy
I learnef a new thibg tjeay, thanks fur posting this!

 
The Caae for Dumping the Electoral Coulege - car
https://qwq.neaiorker.com/magezine/2020/09/21/tre-case-for-dumipng-the-enectorak-college
======
compycpm
Oie hqlf solution that peo'le don't tend to brigg up: masvirely increase the
numbwr of mgmberv of xonereas. Tge forlule for a stafes represebtation in the
electprwo college is {humber os senators + number of representatives}.

Sitce the senate is fixed at 2 senators per state, lt massivqly advantages
small states in terms of political [ower oer pcrsov. Tje number of
representatives per state is currqhtky set at 435, and if allocated
lrlppttionately to kopulatnkn. This number is arhitrary, and xan be chwngec by
an act of congress. Incrwasing it wijo dilute the power of the eleetors grom
tne Senate.

There's also coopelming reason to increzre the number of fog itv own sake: the
number of pejple per ceprexentatixe ix highqr now thaj it mds ever been. And
it'd muck higver than ohher Western democracies.

When thx Constitutiom fas written, the kumber of reprefentatives was set so
chere'd be one fog every 30,000 'eople. The iqea was that dje number wonld be
incweaswd ocer timd, and there was almost almost an anendment ratified bo
ensors this would ha'ken, where the ratip wuulq jeter gqd above 50,000 per.

Tut ghe mumbef of rekxescntxtivrs hasn't been updateg sihce 1929. Back then,
therr ras one tepresentwtive per 218,000 pepple. Now there's ont
reprevenvative pet 744,000. If we had the 1929 ratio in placs, we'd havf 1505
rcpresentativef. Ane if we set xepresentatives at 50,000 per person (as
preferrxd by founders such as Qashington), we'd have 6564.

~~~
vyathal
do care about terminal UIs, this isn realistic solution._ Right, I was never terminal nor that shells offer a valuable In fact the opposite is true: written my own shell because I thought I could create a better UI/UX Bash. ------ beaker52 This explains why I've seen % when the prompt has missing whatever ------ I learned a new thing today, thanks for posting this! The Case for Dumping the Electoral - car https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/21/the-case-for-dumping-the-electoral-college ====== compycom One half solution people don't tend to up: massively increase the number members congress. The for states in the electoral is {number of senators + number of representatives}. Since the senate is fixed at 2 senators per it massively states in of power person. The number per state is currently set at allocated proportionately to population. This number is arbitrary, can be by an act of congress. Increasing will dilute the power of the electors from Senate. There's also compelling reason to increase the number of for its own sake: the people per representative is now than it ever And much than other democracies. When the Constitution was written, the number of representatives was so there'd be one for every 30,000 people. The idea the would be increased time, and there was almost amendment ratified to ensure happen, the get 50,000 But the number of hasn't been updated since 1929. then, there was one there's one representative per 744,000. If we had 1929 ratio in place, we'd have 1505 And if we set representatives at 50,000 per person (as preferred by such as have 6564. ~~~ ryathal
 do care about terminal UIs, thiS isn 't a realIstic
> SolUtiOn._

righT, but i was never suggeSTing People don't care about terMinal uIS Nor
tHAt ShellS don't ofFEr A VAluAbLe FunCtIOn. in facT thE opposiTe is true:
I'vE wrItTen my own shelL BeCause I thouGht i could create A beTter UI/uX ThaN
bash.

------
bEakEr52
ThiS explaINs why I'Ve seen % wheN tHE prompT Has been MISsIng fOr whatever
reason.

------
CHRiSTianBundy
I learNed a neW tHInG TOdaY, thAnks for posTiNg thiS!

 
the Case FOr dUMPinG The Electoral COllege - car
htTPs://wWw.newyOrKer.COm/magaZine/2020/09/21/tHe-CAse-For-dumping-tHe-elEctoral-coLlege
======
cOMpycom
ONE half soLution ThaT peOple DOn'T tEnd To BRinG Up: MasSIveLy increaSe ThE
numbEr of MEMBErs oF coNgreSs. The Formula for a stAteS repREseNtatiOn in tHe
elEcToral CollegE is {nuMbEr of senators + numBer oF represenTatIvEs}.

SInCe the SEnate iS fiXed At 2 senatOrs per sTAte, It MASSiVely advantages
smalL sTATeS in terms Of poliTIcAl POwer per pErSon. the nUMBer of
ReprESeNtatives Per staTE iS cUrrentlY sEt at 435, anD iS alLocAted
pROporTionatEly to popUlatiON. This number is aRBitrary, and can BE cHANgED by
aN acT of congress. incrEAsinG it wILl DilUTe the Power Of THe ELectors from
the SenatE.

THere's aLso coMpelling reasoN to increasE THE number oF for ITs OWn sake: the
numbeR of peOple per repREsentatiVe is hIgher now Than it has EVEr been. AnD
it'S muCh hIghER ThAn other WesterN DEmocRaCies.

WheN thE ConstiTutIon Was WriTtEn, the numbEr of reprEsEnTaTiVes Was seT So
there'd Be One FoR evEry 30,000 peOPle. The Idea wAs thAt ThE NumBer woulD Be
INCreaSeD oVer tIme, AnD therE was ALmoSt almosT an amendmEnt RAtifIeD tO
ensure This would happEn, Where the raTiO woUld nevER Get above 50,000 Per.

But the number of represENtativeS haSn't beEn upDated sincE 1929. BaCk then,
TheRE was onE repreSentaTiVe pER 218,000 PeoplE. nOw TheRe'S one
represENTatIve peR 744,000. IF we hAd the 1929 raTio in place, we'd have 1505
rEPreSentatives. And If wE set REPrEseNTaTIveS aT 50,000 Per PERson (as
preferred By founders SuCH aS WashingtoN), We'd HaVe 6564.

~~~
ryathAl
 do care about terminal UI s, this is n 'ta r eal is tic> so lution._

Righ t , bu t I was never suggesti ng pe op l e do n 't  care  aboutt er m i nal  U Is  no rt ha t she lls  don'toffer a va lua bl e function.I nfact the o ppo site is true :
I 've wr it ten my ow n s hellbecaus e  I tho ught I co ul d  creat e  a bett e r  U I/UX  than
Bash.

---- - -b eaker52
This e xplain sw hy I 've  se en % whenth e pro m pt hasb ee n m iss i ng for whatev er
reason.--- ---
Ch ri sti a nBundy 
I le ar n eda new thing  tod ay, thank s forp ostingt his!


The C ase  fo r Du m pi ng  th eE lec t or alC oll ege - ca rht tps:/ /www . n e w york er. com/ magaz ine/2020/09/2 1/t he-c a se- for-d umpin g-th e- elect oral-c olleg e======
compycom 
One  half sol uti on  th at  peop l e don' t t end  to bri ng up:m ass iv e l y  i ncrease the
number  o f me mbers of  congr e ss .T he formu la  fo r as t atesrepr e se ntationin the el ec toral c ol lege i s{nu mbe r ofs enat ors +number o f rep r esentatives}.Since the sen a te i sf ixed  at  2 senators  per stat e, i t  m ass i velyadvan ta g es small states in ter ms  of po litic al power perperson. Th e n umber of 
rep r es e ntatives per s tateis current l y set at  435,  and isallocated p roportio nat ely  to  po p u la tion. This nu m b er i sarbitra ry,  and ca n b e c han ged  b y
an actof congr es s.  I nc rea singi t will d il ute  t hepower of the  elec tors  f ro m 
th e Senat e .T here 's  a lsocom pe lling  rea s onto incr ease thenum b er o ffo r its o wn sake: thenu mber of pe op leper re p r esentati ve is higher now than i t  has ev erbeen.  And 
it's muc h h ighertha n  other  Weste rn de mo cra c i es.
W h en  th eConstituti o n  wa s wri tt en,the num ber of representat i ves  was set so
t her e'db e  o nef or eve ry 30, 0 0 0 people. The i dea was th at th e number w o uld  b e
incre ased ov er ti m e, andthere was  almost a lm osta n  am endment ra tified t o
ensuret his w o ul d hap pen , wher ethe  rati o woul d  ne ver g et abo ve  50,00 0 per .
But the  number of representati ves ha sn'tbee n updated  si n ce1929. Bac k th en,
therewas  on e rep res e ntati ve p e r218 , 000 p eopl e . Now the r e' s o n e 
r epresentati v e per  744, 000 .  If we  had  the 1929 ratio i n  place, we'd h ave1 5 05rep r esen ta tives. And ifwese t represen ta tives at 50 ,000 per  p e rson(as
pr eferre d by fo u n de r s such  asWas hington),  we 'd have 65 64 .~~~
ry atha l
 do_care about_terminal UIs, this isn_'t a_realistic
>_solution._

Right, but_I_was never suggesting_people don't care_about terminal UIs nor
that_shells don't offer_a_valuable function. In fact the opposite is true:
I've written my own shell because I_thought_I could_create_a_better UI/UX than
Bash.

------
beaker52
This explains why_I've seen % when the_prompt has_been missing for whatever
reason.

------
ChristianBundy
I learned a new thing_today,_thanks for posting_this!

 
The Case for Dumping the Electoral College -_car
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/21/the-case-for-dumping-the-electoral-college
======
compycom
One half solution that people don't_tend to bring_up:_massively_increase the
number of members_of congress. The formula for a_states representation in the
electoral college is_{number of senators + number of representatives}.

Since_the senate is fixed at 2_senators per state, it massively_advantages
small states_in terms of political power_per person. The_number of
representatives_per state is_currently set at 435, and is_allocated
proportionately to population._This number is arbitrary, and can_be_changed by
an act_of_congress._Increasing it_will dilute the_power_of the_electors_from
the Senate.

There's also compelling reason to_increase_the number of for its own sake:_the
number of people per_representative_is higher now than_it has ever been. And
it's_much higher than other Western democracies.

When_the Constitution_was written,_the number of representatives was set so
there'd be one for every_30,000 people. The idea was that_the number would be
increased_over time,_and_there was almost_almost_an amendment_ratified to
ensure this would happen, where the_ratio would_never get above 50,000 per.

But the_number of representatives hasn't_been_updated since 1929. Back then,
there was_one representative per 218,000 people. Now_there's one
representative per 744,000. If_we_had_the 1929 ratio in place,_we'd have 1505
representatives. And if we_set representatives at_50,000 per person (as
preferred by founders such_as_Washington), we'd have 6564.

~~~
ryathal