I think strategic voting would still be present in this system in the form of strategically abstaining (voting less than your true value) for outcomes that seem likely to win in order to store those votes for future elections. This could lead to a widely popular outcome getting starved of votes. There would also be an incentive to introduce lots of meaningless elections between irrelevant (to you) alternatives in order to abstain and accrue more stored votes.
If you have £8 in your pocket and can choose either offer as many times as you want, then you can get an extra £60 worth of vouchers with the £10 for £1 deal.
Even if the offer isn't repeated, there's a possible opportunity cost if you need to buy something from another shop that won't honor the voucher.
In any case, this is secondary to the meta reading comprehension question about what the text is trying to say (whether or not it's employing good reasoning to say it).
It's not obvious that the £20 voucher for £7 is a better deal. For example, the offer might be repeated or you might not otherwise have spent more than £7 in the shop.
How do you define what is “ought”?
When I say "five minutes ought to be enough time", I'm not talking about probability - I'm talking about right/wrong. "Five minutes will be enough time if everything goes right. If it isn't, then something went wrong".
An escaped AI isn't hot and glowing and a visible threat. It isn't obvious that an escape has even occurred or where to draw the lines of the quarantine.
What is the purpose of the -ly exception? What's wrong with "hopefully-corrigible agent" other than that it breaks the rule?
I'm imagining the cat masks are some sort of adversarial attack on possible enemy image classifiers.