TheChurn

American hegemony was a conscious American policy choice. We didn’t want the Euros having an independent foreign policy, we wanted them reliant on American military protection. This was how the US kept those bits of its empire in line.

Notice how the only Western European country that even pays lip service to independent action is France, the one Western European country with a military capable of independent operation. And then we get “Freedom Fries” and all that shit whenever they don’t do whatever the current US admin wants.

The single biggest thing Trump fucked up for the US was pushing NATO countries to spend more on defence. This will drastically reduce US influence over the continent in the coming decades, speeding up America’s worsening diplomatic isolation.

Therapy might help with the childhood trauma but it imparts the poverty trauma.

Which one is better depends on the build you’re going for and whether you want to recruit all companions and get the true ending or are fine with the neutral.

There are really only 3 search providers, Google, Bing, and Yandex.

All others will pay one of these three to use their indexes, since creating and maintaining that index is incredibly expensive.

Bugs have terrible armor penetration, so some heavily armed melee pawns are basically invulnerable. Ghouls from anomaly, with some bionics, are also great.

You can also cheese their spawn location relatively easily, or prevent them from spawning entirely if the temp is below (iirc) -17 c.

That would give politicians another reason to raise the retirement age, in order to stay in power.

I’m not sure I’d trust modern CA to do Med3 justice. The new style of Total War is just a different beast from the sublime RTW/Med2 era.

Lots of little things changed, and it just ‘hits different’. Probably the biggest difference is just that every single fight after the first 20 turns will be a 20 stack vs a 20 stack, and every single battle is life or death for that army. It makes the campaign much faster paced - declare war, wipe stack, capture cities for 3 turns until the AI magics up another 20 stack.

In the original Med2, since there wasn’t automatic replenishment, there were often battles between smaller stacks, even in late game, as they were sent from the backline to reinforce the large armies on the front. Led to some of my greatest memories trying to keep some random crossbowmen and cavalry alive against some ambushing enemy infantry they wandered into. The need for manual reinforcement led to natural pauses in wars and gave the losing side a chance to regroup without relying on the insane AI bonuses of the modern TW games - and I do mean insane; they’ll have multiple full stacks supplied from a single settlement.

Most OLEDs today ship with logo detection and will dampen the brightness on static elements automatically.

While it isn’t a silver bullet, it does help reduce burn in since it is strongly linked to heat, and therefore to the pixel brightness. New blue PHOLEDs are expected to also cut burn in risk. Remember that LCDs also used to have burn in issues, as did CRTs.

They send random gifts some times, usually a code to redeem something in a game I don’t play.

Some super reacts - animated emojis basically.

Other than that I really couldn’t tell you. I don’t think the subscription is worth what the subscription gives, but the alternative is the free product gets worse faster, and that would disrupt a lot of communities that I enjoy interacting with.

Thinking of Discord as a whole, I think it is worth the nitro price. Not in love with the trajectory though.

I mostly just pay for it because I’ve used it for ages and definitely get more value out of it than the subscription cost. I don’t think I use a single nitro feature.

Got the second years ago when it launched because I was looking for a new rpg to play. Bounced off it immediately because the gameplay was far too passive – I didn’t feel like I was doing anything – and the fucking quote spam POPPY WILL PROTECT MASTERPON is branded on my soul.

Not in the middle of a fucking desert, on a military base, far away from any potential market.

Unless you are going to claim that the soldiers stole wheat to sell to locals, for local currency, that they can then use to… do what exactly?

Again, it doesn’t matter whether you find the argument about compelling.

If care cannot be provided profitably, it won’t be provided at all. That is reality. Somehow, the care must be paid for.

Those who need care are not better off if these facilities close.

The businesses are hardly profitable. For every dollar they get from housing a resident, they get just above half a penny of profit.

As I showed above, you can take the entire profit and put it into hiring more staff and it won’t actually make a difference. They either need to raise prices, cut costs elsewhere (maybe administration? I’m not familiar enough to know), or pay people less.

That’s what the numbers say.

We get it, you don’t like nursing homes.

You don’t seem to be engaging with the substance of the matter, so I’ll leave it here.

This would’ve been more believable if they left off the wheat. Oil I can imagine, but no fucking way are US troops stealing wheat of all things.

Do they think there is a mill at their base? What the fuck would they use it for? It has negative value.

And that is a valid opinion. Unfortunately what do you do with all these people if the homes close because they can’t afford staff?

The intent of the bill is to prevent neglect in nursing homes - that is a worthy and important goal. The mandate doesn’t actually help make that happen.

It doesn’t provide funding the care providers to increase staff, it doesn’t add incentives for individuals to get certified and help address the personnel shortage, it doesn’t put a cap on administrative costs for care facilities, it doesn’t actually DO anything to help solve the problem.

Good mandates also provide an avenue to meet them.

That is an insanely small margin, and directly contradicts your claim that they can staff properly.

Let’s take the entire profit for the industry and hire nurses. Let’s say reach nurse costs $80K ( $60K salary, $20K for taxes/insurance/other benefits).

That pays for 9600 more nurses. Which, given the nursing requirements in the bill (3.48 hours per day per resident), only covers staffing for 22K residents… a rounding error to the more than 1.2 million nursing home residents in the country.

There are ~15K nursing homes in the US, each of them getting 0.6 more nurses doesn’t help anything.

The $94/hr isn’t a salary, it’s the cost to the business. Employees generally cost a business 1.3-1.5X their salary - since insurance, payroll taxes, PTO, etc. all also need to be paid for.

Again this is not considering any other cost for the facility: utilities, food, other staff, medical equipment, maintenance, insurance, rent…

3.5 hours of nurse care per resident per day (from the bill).

Resident pays $120K per year to stay at the facility.

There are 365*3.5 hours in a year they need nursing care = 1277 hours of nursing care per year per client.

$120K per year / 1277 hours per year = $94/ hr maximum cost for each nurse - assuming there are no other expenses for the facility.

Must have mistyped to get $95, but that is the math.

$120K per year per resident isn’t that much revenue to cover 24 hour availability of care, food, lease, etc.

I’m not saying it is unworkable, but with the requirement for 3.5 hours of nurse care or resident per day, that means the maximum total cost of a Nurse is $95 per hour, or about $190K.

That really isn’t much - typically employees cost a business twice their base salary. So the nurses can be paid $100K per year while leaving almost $0 for any other expenses…