Yeah, it’s no longer for sale. If you bought it before it was delisted, you can still download/play it through steam. What is fucking atrocious is that I had to go and make an account with epic to play. Well, they can spam and sell my ‘nannerbanner’sfakeemailforepiccunts@proton.me’ all they want. Fucking cunts. .
I know… and I also know that we currently depend on truck rigs for shipping in everything, so the taxes would ultimately focus on them MUCH MORE than even the assholes in their coal rollers. That would mean the ‘punishing’ factor of the taxation would be diluted for them, even if we used GCWR of a vehicle as the standard for taxing.
Is that why the guiness consumption is so high there? I never really thought of it as a sleep aid, but it is pretty drowsiness inducing.
The double their for they’re is driving me nuts.
is the equivalent of almost 150% of Denmark.
I chuckled. Weird comparison usage should be embraced! :D
No, your Ford F-350 SuperDuty does not entitle you to roll coal just to drive to and from your job at Bass Pro Shop, Dale.
I think if we just tax vehicles at the rate they destroy the road, we’d quickly see folks stop having giant vehicles. Set the standard as a bicycle (and be unreasonable about the weight, so 25kg), and then use the lovely X^4 function to determine how much to tax.
A bicycle (and let’s just say the average person is 100kg, and added to the bicycle’s weight, to be unreasonable again) costs $0.50 to register… while the f350 (found a weight for the lightest around 6000 lbs, or 2721.5kg) should be about $0.50 * (2721.5kg/125kg)^4 = $112347.47. I think that would do just fine. Maybe we could adjust down a little, so the bike could be $0.05, and the truck $11234.75.
The reason the PIT maneuver works is physics. Cars are typically heavier on the front end, steer from the front, drive from the rear, and the tires are ‘stationary’ in reference to the ground so they are using the coefficient of static friction rather than the coefficient of kinetic friction (an aside, if you’re trying to use a pickup line on an engineer, hit them with the 'ole ‘Is there ever a case where the coefficient of kinetic friction is greater than that of static friction? No? Then the hardest part of this conversation is over, eh?’).
What that means is everything is in favor of the car using its front end to push the rear end to the side. The front tires are turned in the direction of travel, so they have the static friction still going in a manner less likely to lose it. The rear tires will lose the higher traction from the static friction and suddenly be ‘drifting’ as they switch to the friction forces using the kinetic friction coefficient, whereas even if the front tires were to momentarily lose traction, they wouldn’t have the driving force of the engine keeping them in the lower friction state. The heavier weight from the front is more likely to be able to push the lighter rear.
There is also another factor, slightly less important to the pit maneuver itself (the tactic) and more along the lines of the overall goals of the chasers and the runners (the strategy)… and as a matter of fact, why cops don’t typically use the pit maneuver much anymore. Even with the specialized bumpers they once had, damage to the cop’s car is pretty typical. Damage to the fleeing car is very likely, and damage to people that might be around is common. Cops nowadays are pretty happy to just chase you, keeping a moderate distance, until you make the mistake and wreck or give up, either on the car and try to flee on foot, or by heading towards what you think is a ‘safe’ spot. In fact, if they get a helicopter up, you might not even see the cops anymore as they maintain a distance back and turn off lights. That one is pretty rare, but it occasionally happens, and more often than a pit maneuver. Anyway. If you tried to ‘reverse pit’ them, you’d be slowly taking your one advantage away. They have a lot more cars than you. They can afford to take a little damage if it means slowing you down if you want to start playing the nascar bump game.
Mostly normal. There is some good research and theory about the topic out there. They refer to the trait as ‘self-monitoring’ and rank people as high or low in the trait. High self-monitors are “alert to social cues that suggest what they should do, and they are ready, willing, and able to tailor their behavior to fit in… low self-monitors are both less attentive to social norms and less flexible.”
High self monitors are activity specialists, who have friends for specific things, like a “ballet friend” or “tennis buddy,” and they avoid disputable topics.
There are a few trends that can be seen, with the high self-monitors having higher intimacy in relationships to start, but the relationships are less committed and shorter.
Some papers to look at: Nezlek & Leary, 2002; Fuglestad & Snyder, 2009; Leone & Hawkins, 2006; Snyder & Simpson, 1984; Wright et al., 2007). Quotes from Miller, 2012
I negotiate boundaries with people individually.
Yeah, I think you nailed it there. I am perfectly happy talking about certain parts of my life with certain individuals, while completely walling off those parts with others.
Guess it’s time to go start up that computer game I’ve been putting off.
Oh god, the high protein fad is even making its way into hair care! Ruuuun!
Oh, lol, I remember the shampoo with menthol I had. I loved how it actually brought feeling back to my life.
If you’re going to tell people to look into the lens of romantic*/companionate (and all the other ones you didn’t mention: nonlove/liking/infatuation/empty love/fatuous love/consummate love) you should at least give them some starting points.
Personally, I would really, really recommend the textbook Intimate Relationships by Rowland S. Miller to anyone who is curious about the subject. I had to go pull my edition off of the bookshelf to quickly throw out all the references above.
*because passionate love isn’t the category. The proposed idea was the triangle theory of intimacy, passion, and commitment, which led to the eight above categories----
For dprk, it’s not so much “bring the war to us” as ‘completely flatten seoul in minutes with the enormous amount of artillery they have pointing at it,’ which of course makes south korea a little nervous. Then there’s the possibility of mid range nukes hitting us allies which makes them nervous. I’m quite honestly on the fence about whether anyone in the current us administration would even care. We know trump would merely shrug.
The seals were approached by a fishing boat who had heard their ruckus, and murdered them. The us has a thing for killing fishermen.
I think there’s a middle ground where the game ‘world’ can acknowledge there are political maneuverings happening, while not forcing you to track the shipments of food and goods so you can squeeze nobles who depend on certain economic routes into complying with the king’s orders to rally troops for a cause.
Bounty orders style campaigns are fun for a short while, but there’s only so many ‘go here, kill x, biggest change is the layout of the dungeon and enemy vulnerabilities’ before the game sessions all bleed into one long blurry dice roll. That’s close to warhammer/battletech/etc territory. I want a real story to go with the campaign, and that necessitates a ‘politics’ somewhere unless you’re playing one of the barbarian/end-of-the-world games where there is no civilization or npcs at all aside from enemies.
But I think we can all agree that the “politics” of motions and passing votes is not what was being addressed by OP.
They have tried before (and are still trying) to make contraception illegal. The hobby lobby lawsuit about their insurance paying for birth control was a big part of that.