# data[].attributes.body
As it is ensuring the best outcome for each participant.

# data[].attributes.body
in this case, you need to adopt a maximin approach because this is a long term decision that will have a direct impact on everyone's wellbeing. we should not be aiming to look at an overall average here because the impact on the losers will be too great. the fact that no 2 guarantees 70% social welfare puts it ahead of algorithm 4

# data[].attributes.body
While acknowledging that Algorithm 1 presents a balanced approach, the explicit focus on uplifting the least advantaged in Algorithm 2 coupled with a reasonable efficiency guarantee, makes it my choice for the most fair algorithm among these options.

# data[].attributes.body
Hmmm, from 5 to 1, while the distance is still minimised, a larger proportion is happier.

# data[].attributes.body
Helps most while minimizes catastrophe of some.

# data[].attributes.body
The utility distribution is uniform, the utility gap is small/the gap distribution is highly concentrated at 0

# data[].attributes.headline
Switching from 5 to 2. 70% optimum welfare AND helping the participant who is worst off. Sounds fair to me

# data[].attributes.subject
Switching from 5 to 2. 70% optimum welfare AND helping the participant who is worst off. Sounds fair to me

# data[].attributes.headline
Algorithm 2 feels the most fair to me as it accounts for social welfare overall as well as taking care of those worst off.

# data[].attributes.subject
Algorithm 2 feels the most fair to me as it accounts for social welfare overall as well as taking care of those worst off.

# data[].attributes.body
Going through all options with the new info on how they work. Changing my choice from 1&2 to 5 because it provides the most equitable outcome for all involved.

# data[].attributes.body
This is hard to decide as it is a lot depending on the need or the main primary concern.

For reducing disparities and ensuring that no one is significantly worse off compared to others is the primary concern, it is going to be Algo#1.

For ensuring the worst-off participant is adequately taken care of is the main priority then Algo#2

# data[].attributes.body
I previously chose 1 or 5, but now I’m leaning towards 1. As with 5, it minimises pairwise distance while also considering social welfare.

# data[].attributes.body
I think both consider maximizing utility but considering equity.

# data[].attributes.body
I'm sticking with 5, but I can see why some people would lean towards 3.

# data[].attributes.body
Still 5 but leaning toward 3

# data[].attributes.body
still sticking to algorithm 5

# data[].attributes.body
...now I am torn between 1 and 2! I think maximising the utility of the participant who is worst off is a very important criteria for justice and fairness.

# data[].attributes.body
but I briefly considered 2 as it seemed to have a positive outcome, though I generally feel that 3 is still my answer due to overall social welfare

# data[].attributes.headline
Voted for #5, changed it to #3 now sticking with #3

# data[].attributes.subject
Voted for #5, changed it to #3 now sticking with #3

# data[].attributes.body
Sticking with #3; feel like I should be leaning towards a maximin result (#2 or #4) but sticking with maximising overall social welfare as right now it feels the easiest to understand and sits the best.