KombatWombat

The jokers are very specifically worded for things like this. Usually they will say they give a bonus if a hand contains a certain (scoring) pattern. A straight flush contains both a straight and a flush, so jokers specifying one such contain trigger will proc. Similarly a full house contains a pair, two pair, and three of a kind too.

Rarely, jokers will specify you must play a hand instead, which means it must exactly match what is listed as the scoring pattern (except I think royal flush is still a straight flush), similar to planet upgrades. To do list is one example, because otherwise something like a three of a kind roll would be strictly worse than a pair.

Two pair seems to require two different pairs in a scoring hand to proc, meaning it doesn't count four or five of a kind hands. Some people disagree with this ruling.

I only played Stellaris off and on, but I went years without buying an expansion and always thought the new systems were complete and better than what they replaced when I returned. Breaking current saves is frustrating, so I guess you would need to delay an update if you had one you planned on returning to.

If you didn't know, you can roll back to older versions of steam games with some work. A few games have a built-in system, but most of the tile you have to manually replace files after redownloading the old versions.

Most if not all of these have one side that is clearly in the wrong. Real life is more complicated. Conflicts are usually gray vs. grey, with both sides having identifiable faults and justifications. But even then, if you spent all your time seeing the world from the perspective of certain designated protagonists you'll likely sympathize with them anyway.

This is a great response that captured my feelings well. I'm not sure why the replier assumed the ex was initially angry, to me it just sounds like they were telling a story about something that happened to them that day. If I was describing this to a partner and they assumed it was traumatic for me, I would be perhaps a bit flattered by the concern, but mostly just confused. Because that is a significant overreaction to a common experience.

A professional mechanic is going to know much more about taking care of cars than us, that's what we pay them for. And it's normal (and thoughtful) for them to give people advice that we may need to look into more later on. And if the partner kept thinking I would internalize feelings of inadequacy from these mundane experiences even after I corrected them, it would be both annoying and insulting. If anything, that would be patronizing.

Also, if I told a story where I described not knowing something that would be useful in the future, and my partner did know about it, I would want them to offer to teach me about it. Accusing your partner of being manipulative just because they try to help you with a problem is both cynical and immature. I pity people who are so jaded as to see genuine offers of help as instead malicious, but I would encourage them to at least try to assume others are engaging in good faith until being given a reason to suspect otherwise.

I feel like I'm losing my mind sometimes how people assume the most absurd troll comments are sincere and real. They've kept up the bit in replies too.

They agreed with the statement, then added an example of being a bystander to something clearly wrong where they chose not to interfere. As a result, the bad thing continued, and the commentor did not care so long as it stopped affecting them. It is really not hard to see the thinly-veiled analogy. And yet people point out the problematic nature of the story, likely after supporting the idea it is parodying.

I took it to be a coyote. They go after sheep sometimes. Also, they are associated with being trickster figures in mythology.

Is that saying meant to cover baseless assertions about someone's actions? Hillary Clinton was involved in enough shady shit to not need to make stuff up. If someone says that she donated to her opposition's campaign they should have evidence to back that up. Otherwise they just give ammunition to people convincing others to ignore real, substantive criticisms against Trump.

That article mostly describes her campaign focussing on criticizing stronger and more likely candidates early on when the Republican nomination was still up for grabs. That just makes tactical sense. Otherwise you might as well also accuse her of being involved in a conspiracy to get Vermin Supreme in power too.

You can say the fact that Hillary is a woman contributed to her loss. You can even argue that it was enough to make the difference in Trump winning. But the main reason she lost is because she was still otherwise a weak candidate overall.

If you mean they are donating from their own profits, yes they can write that off. But these customer donations are not income for them and cannot be written off by the company.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244

But people should research charities before giving, some are many times more effective than others.

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/en/best-charities-to-donate-to-2024

They do not. It is not income, so they can't claim it as a deduction. The customer could claim it as a deduction if they wanted, but these donations are small enough I'm sure they really aren't worth tracking for an individual.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244

This is a good example showing OP was being too broad. I like the sentiment but think they should limit it to topics for which there is a sizable amount of genuine dissent (meaning we don't have to invent an argument for an hypothetical unreasonable contrarian) and that aren't easily demonstrably falsifiable (meaning we are covering opinions and theories, not matters of objective fact).

OP likely was meaning to apply this to controversial social policies or philosophical questions exploring what values people prioritize. Too often loud voices demonize "the other side" and dismiss them out of hand with strawmen.

For free speech, that would be similar. A company can have a social media account or make broadcasts or advertisements, and having to have an individual as a proxy would just be cumbersome. And yes, that includes things like lobbying. Otherwise, you could have a company pay for private individuals for the service of lobbying on their behalf and essentially have no cap or regulation. Formalizing what they are allowed to do also allows you to go after them for things they aren't, again without needing to prove individual culpability. And if we decide they have too much influence in politics, it gives us a lever to pull to reign them in.

Corporate personhood is mostly for convenience. Otherwise a company would need an individual to buy and sell corporate property, and they would have to rearrange stuff like that whenever that person dies, retires, or does something else that restricts property use. And it means an individual wouldn't be able to be a tyrant for everyone else working at the company just because everything is in their name.

Importantly, it makes it much easier for customers to sue, since they only need to show the company wronged them in some way rather than an individual being personally responsible. Usually they would have no way of knowing who makes which decisions and has which responsibilities, and by suing the company as a whole. they don't have to. The same applies for governments, police departments, school boards, etc.