European countries have a variety of electoral systems, and to my knowledge right wing parties are gaining significant vote share in all of them. Is there a country whose electoral system you see as best helping them deal with populist reactionary figures?

I am currently a proponent of ranked choice voting - Australia is the country I know of with the most widespread use example. They aren’t magically utopian, but it seems to be helping there. Always on the lookout to learn new things, though, so interested in pointers.

My commute to work includes a main city road with two lanes each way and a turning lane, and sometimes there is a school bus that stops.

There’s something like thirty boxes of information on the thing, and all the others are correct. I suspect whoever was typing it (on a typewriter - this was pre-computers) had several in a row that really were male babies and just got that stuck in their head.

My (cis female) birth certificate erroneously was filled out with “male”. Same error happened on the birth certificate of my mother (who is also cis female). It’s never caused either of us any problems. Schools enrolled us as female, driver’s licenses say female, etc.

When I was in college in the early 2000s, my dad’s mother helped me get a copy of my birth certificate, and was horrified her beautiful granddaughter was listed as male. She called up the county clerk and raised Cain, and then informed me it had been corrected. I’ve never needed to get a fresh copy since then, so I don’t know for sure, but it sounded like the word of an angry old lady was enough to get an update filed.

Or less. Alaska’s dividend program is a couple thousand a year and significantly reduces its poverty rate.

Defining living expenses is tough. If everyone is homeless, getting them a studio or tiny house seems basic, but if everyone is in a studio, getting them into a one bedroom seems basic. If everyone struggles to get enough clean water to drink, having water for drinking and washing seems basic, but if everyone has plenty of wash water then they want pools and irrigated golf courses. The way human brains are programmed with a hedonistic treadmill means we will never feel like 100% of our living expenses are covered. But every sustainable bit of help we can set up society to deliver makes our society richer.

I’ve occasionally been part of training hourly workers on software new to them. Having really, really detailed work instructions and walking through all the steps with themthe first time has helped me win over people who were initially really opposed to the products.

My experience with salaried workers has been they are more likely to try new software on their own, but if they don’t have much flexible time they usually choose to keep doing the established less efficient routine over investing one-time learning curve and setup time to start a new more efficient routine. Myself included - I have for many years been aware of software my employer provides that would reduce the time spent on regular tasks, but I know the learning curve and setup is in the dozens of hours, and I haven’t carved out time to do that.

So to answer the question, neither. The problem may be neither the software nor the users, but something else about the work environment.

It’s a war of attrition at this point, with Ukraine providing almost all the people to become casualties but highly dependent on foreign aid for weapons, ammunition, intelligence, and continued sanctions enforcement on Russia. If either the foreign support or the domestic supply of soldiers falls short before the Russian economy collapses, Russia gets to keep the occupied land. If the first break is the ruble tanks to the point desperate poor foreigners stop signing up en masse to be cannon fodder in the Russian army, Ukraine could realistically take back the territory they lost.

Eliminating benefit cliffs, and taking the onus off applicants (the government has all our taxes!) to prevent qualified people from being cut off due to missing some paperwork box or deadline, would go a long way. Given how great our government has been at making programs that sound like they would help people, but then creating bureaucracy to ensure very few actually get help (not as a money saving thing - the bureaucracy costs a lot - but just because they believe people don’t deserve help), I have a lot of skepticism for any new program.

Different people and relationships can have different solutions that work for them. That’s OK!