Congratulations!

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 06, 2022, 08:18:28 AM
@Ian Plätschisch, if you are the current Immigration Minister then I wanted to ask if it is possible to place a link to Qet Paßa in the New Citizen's Guide?

Done

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 02, 2022, 09:47:23 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 02, 2022, 09:41:16 PM
Well, if the upcoming TNC leadership review wants my opinion (they don't, lol), I would say that if you wanted to form a coalition with a Republican party such as the PdR, doing a 180-degree-turn on a quite moderate monarchical reform was not the best way to do so.

You have never said what you dislike in the "Compromise on the Compromise" proposal. You just dismissed it out of hand (after running on supporting it) - exactly like the most die-hard neo-RUMPist "GOD SAVE THE KING" type would. And you have never offered an alternative proposal for reform. The only conclusion is that the TNC - consisting as it does of a whole parcel of ex-RUMPers, apart from its leadership - is a status-quo monarchist party.

This whinging is eternal.
There is the RUMP bogeyman. Check.
And now the now-dead Compromise on the Compromise, admitted by Miestra herself in post-election remarks. Check.

Let's set aside everything else Miestra said and focus on an important question you have been asked over and over but never answered:

Why did you campaign on supporting the Compromise in the 56th Cosa only to immediately oppose it?

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 02, 2022, 06:58:57 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 02, 2022, 05:00:59 PM

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on April 02, 2022, 07:44:10 AM
I actually thought the final compromise bill was a solid proposal in the end, so Im slightly disappointed it is now declared dead.

Well, the Free Democrats will repropose it on the first Clark. The TNC and Dien will almost undoubtedly vote against it, but that's their look-out. We still have a majority in the Cosa for reform; but under our existing system that's not enough. I don't have the energy to fight for a compromise any more myself.

Not a good sign here. Voters sent a message for change and the first thing the potential next government proposes is a twice-failed bill and that is now even more sure of failure a third time.

Huh?

The bill is not twice-failed, it is once-vetoed. Also, given that the TNC actually put Monarchy reform in their 50-word statement, your voters might now want to know what you have in mind. If the current proposal is not to your liking, you can vote it down and propose something else.

Patience is a virtue.

(If any new citizens are up for a bit of a challenge, try to figure out why the "2017 Organic Law" was passed in 2019 and didn't come into effect until 2020).

I love the fact that I have created two parties which both lasted two elections, so you have to create new labels for both of them rather than just stick them in "other"

Congratulations, you earned it.

You can see my dispassionate analysis in the Election Predictions thread, but in terms of my opinions:
-If the TNC ends up in government, I wish them well. I support Monarchy reform only as a tool to generate more activity, so if a TNC government is able to increase activity some other way, that's awesome.
-If the TNC ends up in opposition, it will be fiercest opposition we've had in a while, which will be great too.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil on March 26, 2022, 06:08:41 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 26, 2022, 06:05:46 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 26, 2022, 05:40:36 PM
I'm not a math guy, but I guess I don't understand why one number doesn't win. That's what I would have assumed - you buy one or more tickets for a dollar each, and if you buy the winning number, you get whatever the pot is for that drawing. Or split it if someone else picks the same number. Pretty low stakes, very simple. Although maybe a dollar wouldn't be enough of a pot if only a handful of people enter, so it might make sense to start off with pricier tickets.

But you guys are engineers and math people, so there are probably good reasons that I don't understand.

I endorse this design. The only mark against it is that it's a bit boring. In that case you could reduce the number of options from 59 while keeping multiple "balls"

Pretty much the other option, if 59 isn't as important. The key is to balance between winners coming up too frequently and winners coming up not frequently enough.

Right...maybe we figure out how frequently we want a winner first, then design the game accordingly

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 26, 2022, 05:40:36 PM
I'm not a math guy, but I guess I don't understand why one number doesn't win. That's what I would have assumed - you buy one or more tickets for a dollar each, and if you buy the winning number, you get whatever the pot is for that drawing. Or split it if someone else picks the same number. Pretty low stakes, very simple. Although maybe a dollar wouldn't be enough of a pot if only a handful of people enter, so it might make sense to start off with pricier tickets.

But you guys are engineers and math people, so there are probably good reasons that I don't understand.

I endorse this design. The only mark against it is that it's a bit boring. In that case you could reduce the number of options from 59 while keeping multiple "balls"

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil on March 25, 2022, 12:38:21 PM
Assuming my math is right, if we used three numbers, that time period drops to about 8.25 years. If we only used two, it would drop to about 18 weeks. No?

I got about seven years for three numbers, but about the same for two numbers.

Remember that both depend on 100 unique entries eligible on each draw.

Glad to have you!

It's great to see new citizens taking initiative!

With that made clear, I have some concern about how the mathematics of this lottery are going to shake out.

The number of unique combinations of four numbers between 1-59 (assuming the order doesn't matter, which my understanding of the rules) is the sum of:

Cases in which all four numbers are distinct (ex: 1 2 3 4): 59 choose 4 = 455,126
Cases in which one number appears twice (ex. 1 2 3 3): (59 choose 3) * 3 = 97,527
Cases in which one number appears thrice (ex. 1 2 2 2): (59 choose 2) * 2 = 3,422
Cases in which one number repeats four times (ex. 1 1 1 1): 59 (pretty obvious)
Cases in which two numbers appear twice (ex. 1 1 2 2): 59 choose 2 = 1,711

For a total of 557,845 possibilities. Since each line can only contain one of these possibilities, each line has only a 1/557,845 = .000001793 chance of winning on a particular draw.

The pricing of the tickets clearly encourages people to buy five lines on each ticket, so assuming each ticket has five unique lines, the chance of a ticket winning on a particular draw is 5/557,845 = .000008963

Similarly, suppose twenty tickets (with five unique lines each) are sold, which is pretty optimistic. The chance that anyone wins on a particular drawing is 100/557,845 = .0001793

Suppose that all of the tickets remain in effect until one of them wins. The number of drawings required before any of the tickets wins is a geometric random variable with distribution:

Pr(D = d) = .0001793 * (1 - .0001793)^(d - 1)

For example, the probability that the first win occurs on the 10th drawing is:

Pr(D = 10) = .0001793 * (1 - .0001793)^9 = .0001790

The mean of this distribution is 1/.0001793 = 5,577

If a drawing were held every week, we would not expect anyone to win for over 100 years!

If anything, the Treasury would surely benefit from being able to loan out the proceeds at interest while it waited for anyone to win.

I am happy to join this project as Chief Actuary to help come up with a more workable design.

Reposting this here

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 19, 2022, 09:09:25 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 18, 2022, 09:30:41 AM
Which restrictions prevented the Government from creating any kind of memorial, including the promised stamp, for Art Verbotten?

The Patriot Points program did not raise enough money for us to think that producing the stamp was prudent at this time.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 29, 2021, 09:09:42 PM

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on September 29, 2021, 02:27:17 PM
So if I understand S;reu Perþonest correctly, about 50 usd was raised in stamp sales/donations last year.

On what basis does the government think it is realistic that 200 dollars will be raised this term (noting that a cosa term is less than a year)?

Also, what is the government's plan regarding the stamps now that it turns out 50 dollars for stamps may not be feasible?

Depending on the amount of donations received, we may deem it worthwhile to request the extra money for the full run of stamps, or we may decide now is not the right time to purchase that many stamps.

Per C.1.1, which allows any citizen to open the Assembly Call if the M3 does not, I hereby open the Assembly Call.

I claim my seat.

Bump