add kiwix; yasnippet macros; a couple new entries; update website

2 files changed, 57 insertions, 17 deletions

diff --git a/blog/normal.org b/blog/normal.org
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ccb40ac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/blog/normal.org
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+#+title: Reconstructing Postmodernism
+#+author: Preston Pan
+#+description: 
+#+html_head: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../style.css" />
+#+html_head: <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="/apple-touch-icon.png">
+#+html_head: <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="32x32" href="/favicon-32x32.png">
+#+html_head: <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="16x16" href="/favicon-16x16.png">
+#+html_head: <link rel="manifest" href="/site.webmanifest">
+#+html_head: <link rel="mask-icon" href="/safari-pinned-tab.svg" color="#5bbad5">
+#+html_head: <meta name="msapplication-TileColor" content="#da532c">
+#+html_head: <meta name="theme-color" content="#ffffff">
+#+html_head: <meta name="viewport" content="width=1000; user-scalable=0;" />
+#+language: en
+#+OPTIONS: broken-links:t
+
+* Introduction
+In the collective subconscious there is this idea of the "norm" -- a
+set of expected cultural attitudes and beliefs that other people hold
+in any given society. This idea is used to analyze hierarchical
+structures found in society, manifest in concepts like the patriarchy,
+queer rights, black liberation, and others. There are many frameworks
+that include all of the above as subframeworks and synthesize them in
+some way, but often they have a couple ideas in common: that the
+concepts that implicitly infect our society in some way via some
+hierarchical order are often unjustified and could be dissolved
+without much loss. I propose the following: that the conclusions
+presented (that often social hierarchies are unjustified) are true
+/in some sense/, but that the real story is more complicated. I posit
+that our inability to solve the problem of society and our treatment
+of minorities isn't a /problem of society/, but rather a framing problem.
+
+* The Bleak Culture
+Our current society is broken. This is a view shared by a vast
+majority of people, but many people hold this exact view for a
+multitude of reasons. I hold this view because I believe that no
+current cultural narrative solves the problem of our "current
+generation". The progressive narrative posits that our problems in
+society are highly linked with our inability to cope with social
+inequalities, often treating minorities and, often times, regular
+people poorly in favor of those with high status. The conservative
+answer to culture is that we must turn back, back to something that
+has been shown to work in the past.
+
diff --git a/blog/voting.org b/blog/voting.org
index eff2ec0..fcb6db5 100644
--- a/blog/voting.org
+++ b/blog/voting.org
@@ -19,20 +19,17 @@ In this article I endorse a system that has been tried out before, but has been
 argue that it has game theoretic foundations that make it superior to other kinds of voting systems.
 
 ** The Model
-Let us assume that there is a small probability that you can swing the election $$ \rho $$, and a cost to voting; that
-is to say, it takes some amount of time, which has opportunity cost associated with it to vote, which we
-will call $$ \alpha $$. Let us assume that there is a high /reward/ in swinging the vote; that is to say, if you were
-the one that swings the vote, your vote is worth some high monetary value. Let $$ \beta $$ be the median price of swinging.
-Let $$ n $$ be the number of people voting, and let the weight of each vote be equal between all participants.
-Let the choice of candidate between all voters be binary; voting for one candidate mutually excludes you from
-voting for another, and there are two candidates (this is to simply the model; you will see that this does not
-lose generality). Then, let us model the expected value of voting for singular individuals.
-
-For a given person, the probability that your vote swings (or at least ties) depends on the probability that
-$$ x = \frac{n - 1}{2} $$, where $ x $$ is the number of people that vote for your candidate. The probability
-density function for the probability that $$ m $$ people vote for your candidate we'll call $$ f $$. We will assume
-it is binomial, and you might expect it to be closer to 50/50 most of the time, but that is pretty hard to model.
-We will therefore compensate by modeling it more accurately afterwards. For now, we assume all participants have
-a 50% chance to pick either candidate.
-\begin{align*}
-\end{align*}
+Let us assume there is a small probability of swinging the
+election $$ \rho $$, and a large reward for winning the election $$ W $$.
+Let us assume that there are two candidates, and the probability of
+voting for a single candidate is 50%. Therefore, the final probability
+distribution for the number of votes each candidate gets is binomial,
+centered around the mean outcome (which is the outcome where there are
+an equal amount of votes on each side, and we can count the number of
+/red/ votes only; let's let $$ k $$ represent the number of red votes).
+Let's remind ourselves of the binomial distribution:
+\begin{align}
+  P(X = k) = { n \choose k } p^{k}(1 - p)^{n - k}
+\end{align}
+where $$ n $$ is the number of samples, and $$ k $$ is the observed
+number. Now, we can calculate the probability