 Feb 2019

www.fairvote.org www.fairvote.org

Any election system that favors extremists would be considered unreasonable; the same rationale must be applied to moderates.
Utter nonsense. To paraphrase:
Any election system that favors unrepresentative candidates [like IRV] would be considered unreasonable; the same rationale must be applied to one that favors representative candidates.
Uh, no. That doesn't follow.
FairVote starts from the conclusion that IRV is the best voting method, and then works backwards to try to justify it, in this case arguing that a flaw of IRV is actually a feature, by making a false equivalent between a voting system that favors unrepresentative candidates and one that favors representative candidates.
The whole point of an election is to find the mostrepresentative candidate.

Agreeing that the Condorcet criterion is desirable is equivalent to saying that moderate candidates should always win.
Yes, candidates who are moderate relative to the voters should always win.
The goal of an election is to find the candidate who best represents the electorate. If the electorate is leftwing on average, the winner should be too. If the electorate is "strong on both personal freedoms and economic freedoms", then the winner should be too.
Anything else is undemocratic.

Condorcet winners are centrist by nature, regardless of the preferences of the electorate.
This isn't true. It's possible for a Condorcet candidate to be extremist relative to the other candidates or the electorate, since weak preferences are given equal weight to strong preferences. Simple example here:

not necessarily liked more than other candidates
This is true, but IRV doesn't choose the candidate who is mostliked (the "utilitarian winner"), either.

 Nov 2018

www.fairvote.org www.fairvote.org

Under range/score, the best strategy to promote the election of a preferred candidate is always to give that candidate the maximum score and then give every other competitor the minimum score.
Yeah, this is false.
If you have perfect knowledge of how everyone else is voting (and you usually don't), then the best strategy is to give a maximum score to the frontrunner that you prefer, and also to everyone you like more than them, and to likewise give a minimum score to the other frontrunner, and to everyone you dislike more.
This is not bullet voting; it's equivalent to Approval Voting, and leads to more moderate winners who are good representatives of the electorate.
Realworld Score elections don't show this behavior, anyway, because polls are imprecise and the consequences of voting honestly under Score aren't as dire as they are under FPTP or IRV.

Rebuttal to [the original version of] this page at https://www.equal.vote/fv

unlike RCV, it would be subject to tactical voting
This is nonsense. All voting systems are subject to tactical voting.


www.voterchoicema.org www.voterchoicema.org

On the theoretical front, approval and score voting fail a critical test that voting theorists call the majority criterion.
"Failing the majority criterion" is actually a good thing, because these systems find the candidate who is most acceptable to the entire population, rather than the candidate who is most acceptable to half of the population.
Majoritarianism that ignores the desires of half of the population leads to adversarial politics, polarization, and eventually even to violence and civil war.

and works well in practice
...which is why it subsequently gets repealed?

 Oct 2018

www.shure.com www.shure.com

If the SM58 noise floor is calculated at room temperature, the voltage output is 0.00000032 volts.
This is equal to 130 dBV. The SM58 Vocal Microphone Specification Sheet says:
Sensitivity (at 1,000 Hz Open Circuit Voltage) –54.5 dBV/Pa (1.85 mV)
At this sensitivity, the selfnoise would be 94  (54.5  130) = 19 dB SPL, which is pretty typical and certainly not "lower than can be typically measured".

 May 2018

www.radioelectronics.com www.radioelectronics.com

plus the impedance of the path from the inverting input to ground i.e. R1 in parallel with R2.
This is incorrect. If R1 is infinite and R2 is 0, the parallel impedance is 0 ohms, but the input impedance is much higher than the input impedance of the opamp itself, due to feedback making the inputs very similar in voltage.
The input impedance is actually
$$(1 + A_0 B)\cdot Z_\mathrm{ino}$$
where
 \(A_0\) is the gain without feedback (the open loop gain)
 \(B\) is the fraction of the output which feeds back as a negative voltage at the input
 \(Z_\mathrm{ino}\) is input impedance without negative feedback
For the above buffer example, it would be close to \(A_0 Z_\mathrm{ino}\)
See https://electronics.stackexchange.com/q/177007/142
Simpson  Introductory electronics for scientists and engineers section 7.2 Negative Voltage Feedback explains this clearly

 Apr 2018

www.exploratorium.edu www.exploratorium.edu

Leonhard Euler, who adopted it in 1737
Actually, he first used π in 1727, and it meant 6.28.., not 3.14..
Tags
Annotators
URL


web.mit.edu web.mit.edu

10–27
Equation 1027 is wrong:
 Resistors are in parallel, their noise does not sum.

Adding this and the 100kΩ resistornoise to the amplifier noise
This is 3 terms (10 MΩ noise, 100 kΩ noise, and amplifier noise), but the equation only includes 2.

10–25
Equation 1025 has several errors:
 The left and right side are not equal.
 Resistors are in parallel, so their noise does not sum.
 Resistor noise needs to be multiplied by gain to be combined with 113.1 μV output noise of opamp.

10–23)
Equation 1023 is incorrect:
 The noise of the resistors does not sum, since the resistors are in parallel and load each other. It would be equal to a single 50 kΩ resistor producing 4.0 μV.
 The 113.1 value is output noise. The resistor noise needs to be multiplied by the gain to get the output noise, too.

0.1 F
Should be 0.1 μF

0.1 F
Should be 0.1 μF

The noise calculations have many errors. See annotations on https://via.hypothes.is/http://web.mit.edu/6.101/www/reference/op_amps_everyone.pdf for details

which is 100
actually should be multiplied by the noninverting noise gain, which is 101

TLE2201
Should be TLC2201


intranet.ee.ic.ac.uk intranet.ee.ic.ac.uk

The noise calculations have many errors. See annotations on https://via.hypothes.is/http://web.mit.edu/6.101/www/reference/op_amps_everyone.pdf for details

 Mar 2018

web.hypothes.is web.hypothes.is

An equivalent extension for Firefox is coming shortly.
It's been 3 years! Where is it??


www.analog.com www.analog.comMT2042

The poles of the Bessel filter can be determined by locating all of the poles on a circle and separating their imaginary parts byn2where nis the number of poles.
This is incorrect:
 The poles are not located on a circle
 The imaginary parts of the poles are not equally spaced
To generate the poles of a Bessel filter you need to use rootfinding methods on the reverse Bessel polynomials. There's no other shortcut that I'm aware of.

The step response shows no overshoot
This is incorrect: There is a small amount of overshoot in Bessel filters.


www.radioelectronics.com www.radioelectronics.com

with no overshoot
This isn't quite correct: Bessel filters have a small amount of overshoot.


www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

according to the Google Chrome Web Store
Link is dead :D
