Digging around the forums it’s really easy to find replacements! FP3 replacement parts are still widely available, and you can find FP2 parts by doing a bit of digging. Remember to contact your local Fairphone Angel too!

Being very pedantic, small parts of Georgia and Azerbaijan are within the commonly agreed borders of Europe (the Georgian parts that fall on the Terek river basin and the Azeri Quba-Xaçmaz region)

I think you missed the part where I said that it can happen, but that it’s rare and hard to predict.

Yea, sorry, my wording wasn’t the clearest. I meant to say that it is actually not that rare, and hoped that the linked source would help support that claim. From the same website:

We can [assume that] “all votes [are] equally likely except that the probabilities that A,B,C will be middle-ranked of the three in that vote are 30%, 30%, and 40% respectively” where C is the 3rd-party candidate. Then in IRV as #voters→∞, C’s probability of winning is probably exponentially tiny so that Joe Voter is justified in assuming C only a very tiny […] chance of winning. Indeed C only has a tiny chance of merely surviving the first round.

However, Joe reasons, if Joe and friends by honestly-ranking C top do manage to make C survive the first round, then that will almost certainly happen only at the cost of eliminating Joe’s second-favorite candidate A. If the A votes then transfer equally to C and B (which in “1-dimensional politics” with C A B arranged along a “line” in that order, seems likely) then C will almost certainly still lose, and will have deprived A of victory in the process.

The idea then would be that the behavior of mid-ranking the 3rd party candidate would be self-reinforcing in IRV: an assumption of a slight bias that way like we just made (40% versus 30% […]), then leads to it being strategically wise for Joe Voter to do it, leading to a larger bias that way, etc. – positive feedback, self-reinforcing 2-party domination.

Approval Voting is bad because of the simple fact that it doesn’t let you express any preference.

I agree and that’s why I support Score Voting over it! The mechanism to express that one candidate is better than another one is to just give them honest scores! And there’s studies proving that’s the reality is, the vast majority of people are at least somewhat honest when filling out a Score ballot

And when that happens it just defaults to approval, which is still non-monotonic and better than IRV, but it’s been proven anyway that that doesn’t happen and most people are honest (or would learn to be honest after few iterations). IRV is also not devoid of strategy, as it can be better to rank your true favourite lower

Investing in wind doesn’t need to be attractive, it needs to be part of a government-owned national energy infrastructure plan that gets it where it needs to be and where it’ll serve the needs of the people the best

jeg håber, at privatlivets fred i fremtiden er udgangspunktet, og at det kun er marginale partier, der går ind for overvågning

Here they are! Orange represents my Leapweek calendar and blue is Gregorian. The Y-axis is deviation from the tropical year and the X-axis is the year number. It’s a 19200-year cycle to allow for both Gregorian and Leapweek to do entire iterations of their 400-year and 768-year cycles, respectively.

The Gregorian rules are, as you already know: if a year is divisible by 4, it is a leap year; unless it is divisible by 100, when it is a common year; unless it is also divisible by 400, in which case it is actually a leap year.

My Leapweek rules are: years divisible by 8, are leap (short, with 360 days instead of the usual 366) years, as are years divisible by 768 (after subtracting 4 so as not to clash with years divisible by 8). Just two rules as opposed to Gregorian’s three, but they result in almost perfect correction: it takes 625 000 years to fall out of sync by 1 day, as opposed to Gregorian’s 3 216 years for the same amount)

The catch is that Leapweek falls out of sync by up to 5½ days either way in between 768-year cycles, and up to 2½ days either way in between 8-year cycles. But they average out.

About the lunisolar I’m afraid to say that I ran into the same issue. Lunations are a very inconvenient duration to try and fit into neat solar days and months.

I wish it weren’t as theoretical, because I really like this calendar, but yea. It’s one of those things that will be impossible to change even though there’s arguably better options. It’s too arbitrary yet too essential and it goes in the same box as the metric second/minute/hour, the dozenal system and the Holocene calendar.

Here’s a challenge though: try and devise a Martian calendar! That one is not standardised yet. I had good fun trying to match the Martian sol and year to metric units of time and maybe giving some serious use to the kilosecond, megasecond and gigasecond

As an extra, here’s a 1000-year version of the graph at the start of the reply, with the current year 12 025 of the Holocene calendar :^) in the middle

Wouldn’t be many users, but would having a separate version on F-Droid be a way to be able to reach some of them?

Only in eight year chunks. By year seven there is more unalignment than there was in year one, but it goes back to normal on year eight. Same thing as with leap days, just a slightly bigger scale.

In fact, with current rules, [the shift in the regular Gregorian calendar becomes quite big when considering 100-year and 400-year cycles](File:Gregoriancalendarleap_solstice.svg). In theory, a leap week calendar with new and updated rules could have a very comparable if not a smaller average deviation from the true solar date, though I haven’t ran the precise calculations

Hey, I quite like this! You’re the first person I’ve found that’s thought of fixing the calendar by adopting six-day weeks. I have a very similar personal version, with two main differences:

• there’s a leap week instead of a leap day, that way weekdays are always the same without having to skip any and every year has a whole number of weeks (either 61 most years [roughly 7 out of every 8] or 60 on short years [roughly 1 out of every 8])
• December includes this leap week and it’s either 30 or 36 days long, depending on the year. I put it at the end of December for the same logic that you put Saturnalia at the end of the year, to not mess with cardinal dates and so that the Xth day of the year is always the same date

I also came to the same conclusion about workweeks. With two-day weekends, the Gregorian calendar has 71 % of workdays but the new calendar only has 67 %. On a thirty-day month this means 20 workdays instead of 21,5. Having the six-day week could also theoretically allow for a move to three- or two-day weeks in a post-scarcity future and doing away with weekends, as well has having either 50 % or 67 % of the workforce being active every day of the week, and not the wild levels of fluctuation seen today. Not having 100 % commuting some days of the week and a fraction of that on others would allow to scale things like transport infrastructure much more effectively