Yes, that's the plan. I'm planning on moving to a city next to a paddleable river this year, I want to practice in that river this summer, and then in autumn do a weekend trip not necessarily a trip down a river where I'd camp along the way, I'm also looking at campgrounds next to scenic paddleable lakes for daytrips.
I'm currently looking to get into canoeing as a hobby, inspired by tales and aesthetics of it from preceding eras, and I'm very afraid that I'm about to arrive into a hobby that had all the discovery and enjoyment (for me) optimized out of it. People are already reporting that national parks have to be reserved at the opening of the season if you want to have a chance to get a camping spot. My plan to avoid this is to use my contrarian superpower to look for under-optimised strategies. Everyone's reflex when it comes to these things is to go to national parks, maybe I should look at private camp grounds? Or at hunting/fishing lands, which do regulate the recreational use in a different scheme than national parks.
The steelman of price discrimination is that it enables a lower floor to a product's price than if it had to offer a single price point, which helps accessibility. It can even be good, in that the people who overpay for a few extras (especially for stuff like "color stitching" on seats or other visual upgrades which are pretty much just signaling that they could afford to pay for a fancy trim) are subsidizing the product for the people who get the cheaper ones. That if you made it illegal and that all cars had to have only one trim, it'd be a middle trim, it'd be more expensive than the current middle trim and the people who could only afford the base trim now just can't buy it anymore.
He's not actually saying anything about invading allies, what happens is that he mentions he'd like something that's a long shot, journalists jump to ask "is a military intervention ruled out?" and then he (or a surrogate) answers "nothing is ruled out" because the administration doesn't want to play or discard cards in their hand because of some jackass journalists. And the circus of "he's planning to invade an ally!" starts.
and the EU seems to be taking it seriously.
I don't think that means anything. There's political capital to win for western politicians in being the one who's most against or opposite Trump, and that's easier if you interpret everything he says in the least charitable, most unhinged way. We saw the same here in Canada, a certain defeat for the liberals was flipped by the media acting like Trump is seriously planning to invade.
My guess is that it's good a place as any. Wokeness, in its racial form, is in large part what we call "white guilt", which requires whiteness, which Minnesotans have, probably more than any other group. The kind of metastasized prosocial niceness that even if someone else does something bad right in your face you'd find a reason to excuse it and blame yourself for it. It also requires fairly recent multiracialism as over more than a couple of generations, white people tend to see that other races' successes and failures hinge on more complex factors than "white people".
I don't think you're not getting it, we just have a different gaming profile. The progression is frustrating and randomised, but personally I just put out of my mind. All it does is inform which buildings I'm likely to target for looting in a run but other than that I'm happy just getting random stuff and shooting ARC. I don't hate the looking through trash aspect. And the shooting is satisfying to me.
I'll grant that the out of run inventory management is annoying and especially coupled with the slow progression. I'm filling up with materials to build stuff I just don't have the blueprints or levels to build; and there's little use in building a bunch of entry level equipment, you'll always be able to build them right before a run.
It's not game of the year, but it's the low time and mental commitment that makes it so I keep coming back for a handful of runs a day.
It's not a competitive shooter, it's an extraction shooter, like Tarkov. That means sometimes you'll end up in a fight with other players, but in my experience the ARC Raiders playerbase is quite chill, at least when I play solo. 95% are not going to initiate PvP, most are happy just saving someone's ass for the fun of it. The PvE enemies are overwhelming but also previsible which makes them fun to plink at. The biggest issue I would say the game has is that it's repetitive and has a hard time keeping me occupied for more than an hour or so at a time.
I keep putting hours into ARC Raiders. It's low commitment to just go do a run or two. I also keep playing Marvel Cosmic Invasion, which was phenomenal at start but later on in the game it starts piling up more frustrating enemies. I don't know how I feel about that.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think that guy exists. But one can position themselves as him until he gets elected and the media shrieks at him constantly anyway.
So hypothetically, if I think the President is giving illegal orders to the military, or might, it’s out of bounds to say that to soldiers?
If you think so, you point to which orders you mean. Also, it's probably not up to a partisan politician to point it out, but to military instructors to explain it.
Something like “a soldier’s duty to disobey illegal orders is extremely serious and can have extremely serious consequences don’t fuck around with it as part of your political posturing.”
Pretty much. The military relies on obedience from soldiers except in the case of grossly illegal orders. "Don't execute illegal orders" is not for complicated matters that requires judges and courtrooms to parse, let alone those thorny enough that they often end up at the Supreme Court level, it's for obvious "I order you to set these unarmed civilians on fire" stuff. If those senators had any examples of those they should have been able to point them out. Otherwise, they're just messing up the chain of command by encouraging grunts to apply discretion to stuff that's way, way, way above their station to decide.
There's also some less committed Republicans who could be driven to exhaustion by the constant "everything Trump does is unprecedented and threatens the republic if not the entire planet" background messaging of the media. Positionning yourself as the guy that will still be a Republican but won't have the media shriek constantly about is good if you feel that these people outnumber Trump-only (or Trump-approved-only) voters.
DeSantis was the most surprising
DeSantis is not surprising. He's trying to thread the needle between not angering Trump while trying to get the media's approval as the "least bad Republican" for his next run.
The problem is the implication. We can play dumb and act like either are just innocent reminders of facts that are usually irrelevant because the preconditions for them (illegal orders or seditious senators) doesn't happen often, but what really matters is that the timing and the choice of messengers carries with it a neon flashing sign implying those preconditions have happened.
What do you make of knives? They're pretty uncontroversially deadly weapons, also have non violent uses and I would guess more Americans have at least one than cars.
I think the differenciator for deadly weapon shouldn't be whether there is a non violent use for it, but more what the likely intent is if someone attacks you with that object. If someone attacks you with a knife, or a car, you can surmise the intent is deadly, or at least the attacker has little regard whether his attack will cause death. Unlike a taser, or some blunt weapons (like a baton; a hammer I would probably consider lethal).
- Prev
- Next

What makes it true or not is how healthy the competition and the market is. A company that only did this to extract more money from each sale would find itself having a hard time finding buyers compared to cheaper competitors. Companies that offer a genuinely good deal don't do it from the goodness of their heart, they do it because it's also a valid business strategy to aim at making a larger number of sales with a lower profit margin.
In the case of "signaling" addons, it's quite possible that both the car manufacturer and the customer are happier with price discrimination. After all, the point of signaling is that you're showing everyone you paid for something expensive because you have money. If it was cheaper, or if it was available on every trim, that exclusive paint color or colored stitching the rich person paid for wouldn't be useful to signal how rich he is.
More options
Context Copy link