Jump to content

Lectryk

HERO Member
  • Posts

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

819 profile views

Lectryk's Achievements

  1. Hi; Page 43 in Vol 1 talks about applying Naked Advantages to Strength, and the examples used are Grond and Durak. These two characters have a high native strength, so it's easy to calculate. But what if you have a martial artist (or high values of HA)? If I make a character with 15 STR - 3d6 5cp; a Martial Strike - 2d6 4cp; 5 HtH Damage - 5d6 20cp for 10d6 29cp tot is the Naked Advantage Cost calculated from the cp of the STR (5) or the STR+MA (29)? In Hero System Martial Arts, pg 107, there is a comment about Martial Maneuvers not costing endurance but Naked Advantages applied do cost endurance which leads me to think it's the total value, but thought I'd ask to clarify. Thanks.
  2. The social engineering side of this argument doesn't matter for the purposes of this issue. The system in the US says 'Wages go up equals prices go up, because...'. The value to shareholders (or use stakeholders for non-investor owned operations) can't be dinged, because of losses the company suffers; so they pass the costs along to consumers (either in price hikes or quality loss). I have seen many articles talking about the impacts of just the raise that Newsome sheparded through (this Hill article covers some: https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4389027-californias-minimum-wage-woes-are-a-cautionary-tale-for-the-nation/, or this https://www.kron4.com/news/california/fast-food-is-about-to-get-more-expensive-in-california/ or this: https://abc30.com/minimum-wage-fast-food-workers-2024-laws/14227601/ for more local businesses - I won't be held accountable for the reasoning/justification/logic in the articles, but it speaks to economic facts that operators face on the ground). I've seen more, but these are representative. And this is in response to the raise to $20. What would the responses be to $50? The fact is, businesses are shedding jobs because of this minor raise, for whatever reason - if people agree it is a reason or not - this is happening. Will the same staffing/service cuts apply to other businesses/segments/non-shareholder driven? Don't know - I can say that raising wages for certain workers will lead to more competition for workers in the same wage range (why should I work for you, when I can get a $4 dollar/hr raise by flipping burgers?) which will lead to wage hikes for competing wage pool staff, which will lead to reductions in services or price hikes in non-aligned businesses, which will.... The raise % she is talking about will not have the effect of evening the playing field she speaks to - if not buttressed by other laws. Rent control and general limits (% affordable housing units, etc) on the housing market come to mind. Absent controls, the housing market will explode even more than SoCal's already insane market - people with more dollars, competing for the same limited pool of resources is the definition of inflation. The price inflation the area has been going through for the last forty years (or more) will just be given a massive incentive to continue, people will continue to be priced out, just at ~100k, not ~50 k. Raising wages alone is not the answer. And, what happens to people on salary, not getting the $50 dollar raise? Middle class workers already have a difficult time in that area, what will doubling the pay of others while not doubling theirs do to them? State wide, this ($50) most certainly is not a solution. In the region? Maybe? But the unintended results will outwiegh any good, if other systemic problems aren't addressed. Is the system broken? Sure. What are the solutions? In this specific case, I have no idea. But just fiddling with one input doesn't do anything good to the equation - this isn't a case of all other conditions remaining the same.
  3. In N Out isn't publically traded, so they don't have the 'can't let the shareholders value drop' driver (also a reason why the quality of product is better). I don't think they franchise either (for the same reason - quality).
  4. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/missouri-republican-secretary-of-state-biden-trump-ballot-rcna132600
  5. It'll die at the Supreme - it's bad law/decision. This is another example the Right will use to pillory liberal judges making law. A State can't rule on Federal issues - the supremacy clause handles that. Who sits in Federal office is up to the constitution. Has Trump been found guilty of insurrecion in a Federal court? Has he even been charged in Federal court? The states run the elections, yes, but has Trump been found guilty of insurrection against the state of Colorado? That's the only jurisdiction this court has. If Colorado has some language in their state constituion, they should have settled on that. The Colorado Supreme can eject him from the process under any legal (Colorado) pretext they like, just not one he is legally (currently) innocent (Federal level) of, involving Federal standing (the clause). If he is found guilty in Federal court of insurrection then as an officer of the United States when his crime was commtted, he can't take office under this clause. But nothing in the clause pohibits him from running (from my reading, anyway), or Republcans from electing him. He just can't serve. Let the party waste their time and money. The questions above are serious - I have deliberately stopped following news of the sh*tshow that is Trump, the Republican party, the clowns and dimwits scrabbleling for some form of personal aggrandizement in Trumps shadow. I don't think anything that Smith has charged rises to the level of Insurection, but I don't know. I haven't heard *any* word of guilty finding in court as to insurrection, though.
  6. He's not a convict yet, he hasn't lost his right to vote or hold office (and that only in some states). I don't think there is a federal law about felon status barring either.
  7. Thank you for the article. It lays out the issues surrounding limitations on the pardon power, the scopes of what can be pardoned, etc. I didn't see it saying that the president was immunized from bribery to gain a pardon, though (https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2041-bribery-public-officials and https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/sites/ca3/files/Chap 6 Bribery.pdf seem to cover what Weinstein may be able to offer evidence of). I think from your reply we're talking past each other. I am not saying anything about the pardon power of the presidency (which seems to me to be the point of your posts), but the potential activity around this particular pardon, and if Weinstein obtained it through offering some consideration. If I misunderstand your postes/intents, I apologize.
  8. How is being open to a charge of bribery not Trump's problem? Granted, Weinsteing may or may not have this to offer, but if he does, Trump would be the target of the charges.
  9. If an inducement was offered for the pardon, that's a crime. Weinstein might have something to deal with.
  10. The polls don't reflect that helping him. He's lagging behind Trump in the doubles, last I bothered to look. He's being doing the whiney 'The press is against my campaign!' for a bit. That hasn't been helping, either.
  11. It is a Saberhagen book, he does get graphic sometimes - were there descriptions of digging a used Farslayer out of the chest(s) of victims? Or did the blade regenerate like that cheesy Sword and the Sorcerer sword that had three blades that could shoot out?
  12. I did those, too. We have had a generation didn't have to, though. Millenials at least didn't come up under the cloud of potential nuclear annihilation and were out before school mass shootings became a regular thing. Is that a win?
  13. The State of Tennessee is one of several that has a clause that bars same sex marriages/partnerships: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions Like many laws or clauses they are unforceable because they run contrary to the supremacy of Federal Laws, but that doesn't stop these types of laws from being passed. So, *if* a clerk does follow through on their beliefs, it wouldn't need to go the Supreme to be overturned - that clerk/official would face Federal charges when someone they reject complains (remember Kim Davis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis). It still will be messy, and cause problems all around, but the real criminals here are the politicians saying 'oh, our laws will stand!' I can't use the langauage here I'd like to, to describe these cretins.
  14. More examples of unenforceable laws being enacted for the click-bait susceptible base...
×
×
  • Create New...