Lectryk

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.

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.

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).

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/missouri-republican-secretary-of-state-biden-trump-ballot-rcna132600

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.

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.

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.

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.

If an inducement was offered for the pardon, that's a crime. Weinstein might have something to deal with.

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.

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?

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?

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.

More examples of unenforceable laws being enacted for the click-bait susceptible base...

How the dog got the pistol aside, if it lives in an appropriate county and the sheriff issued a permit open carry like that would be fine, wouldn't it?

I don't think even that contortion would work. On it's face, it comes down to an argument between the rights of the prospective mother, and the right of the unborn to be be born. We know which way that the current bench would rule, with that logic. Any prospective case would face the hurdle of proving that bearing to term is involuntary servitude/slavery when there is an option to adopt out the baby. If there was case law/laws in general requiring 'proper pre-natal care' (even a definition of that) at the federal level let alone the state level, there would be a level of invasiveness and control of the individual's actions that could be read as servitude/slavery, but there isn't precedent for that (that I know of, anyway).

What I find interesting (a corollary to OM's comment about the race of the officers) is that there are no command officers/staff being penalized (at least yet). Training, sop's, p&p's, etc exist for a reason. This corpus is written by the command staff, presented in the form of training (either in-house or contracted in some way), and is part (should be, at least) of the road staff evaluations.... Who had the brainstorm to launch the Scorpion program, with so little oversight that behaviors like this could grow (in my experience, this would not have been the first time these guys threw on somebody - but it takes a very lax/unobservant hand from command for it get like this). Some command staff weren't doing their jobs of training/modeling/monitoring appropriately, for quite a bit. Will rank protect them, or will higher heads roll sooner or later?

They'll go in to a segregated. I can't imagine Tennesee not having such a policy in their DoC. It'll be time, but they won't be in pop.

This is authentication buried in the process of creation: it's his (his team's?) trademark to steal (um, use without proper attribution) others IP. Beat my answer to it...

What? The 'Always monologue about your plans, intentions, and motivations' rule? Sounds like she's doing it... Not having a passport doesn't stop him from leaving the country. Russia has recent history of welcoming high profile fugitives from American justice (or political refugees, take your pick of terms). And Vlad owes him big time.

Statistics are useless without peer/like groupings controlled by rigorous protocols. There are legal, and medical definitions here. 18 years of age is the legal age of majority, they are adults. The American Association of Pediatrics sets it at 21 (https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/140/3/e20172151/38333/Age-Limit-of-Pediatrics?autologincheck=redirected?nfToken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000). Which value should we use? Should we disenfrancise anyone under the age of 21 based on that? Are military deaths/injuries to 18 years by guns included in that study? If not, why not? That's violence. What is the definition of violent crime, even? There have been several situations with various police agencies under reporting certain crimes, by classification (even the FBI).

Because politics is a popularity contest, not a rational choice contest. Because most of your post posistion appeals to a large segment of a certain class of voter, and the guy is first a foremost a showman - give the people what they want. And the parts of the post that are definitions... well.. again, that fits the mood that his crowd want. I completely get the disbelief and disconnect that prompts your statement. But. He's giving his people what they want, the party structure is punishing those who dissent (cf Cheney), certain actors are using the chaos he is creating for their own ends (at least until he turns on some of them, as well - cf his tirades about disloyal people that were bosom buddies up until the tirade)... Everything you are seeing as a bug of his presence, is a feature to others. Style over substance, thy name is Trump. The guy is a living exemplar of the '..fool some people all of the time...' saying.

This: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5140, maybe? https://hankjohnson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-johnson-introduces-supreme-court-justice-term-limit-measure-restore - but it doesn't talk to stupid things, specifically.

Oh, the original form of the quote, and when it took place, are better than this truncated form. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sanders-abortion-womb-classroom/ " Context It’s true that Sanders said this. A video of the remark went viral after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that effectively legalized abortion in the U.S., was overturned on June 24, 2022. The clip was recorded a month prior on May 24, however, the same day as the deadly school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. More of Sanders’ speech is featured in the story below. Fact Check On May 24, 2022, Arkansas Republican gubernatorial candidate Sarah Huckabee Sanders made a campaign promise that touched on the subject of abortion, saying, “We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they’re as safe as they are in a classroom, the workplace, a nursing home. Because every stage of life has value. No one greater than the other.” This was a genuine quote. " And, since she made this *after* the news would have broken ... doubleplusungood the doublethink the modern gop has going on.