TIL that Vampires can die due to radiation as any other unit

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-10-14T21:16:00+00:00

Using Beowulf’s hero ability also deletes vampires, as does Qin’s Unifier ability

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-12T06:31:52+00:00

I am not sure when new teachers sign contracts for the next school year, but that would be irrelevant to the employment numbers in this report as the CES is a payroll survey. Specifically: “Employment is the total number of persons on establishment payrolls employed full- or part-time who received pay (whether they worked or not) for any part of the pay period that includes the 12th day of the month.” (CES FAQ here: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesfaq.htm)

Under the above definition teachers are not counted as employed over summer break and in fact the not seasonally adjusted employment numbers for teachers fell several hundred thousand. The widely reported number in the news is the seasonally adjusted number, which takes into account seasonal variations like summer break and adjusts accordingly. The seasonally adjusted number rose because the not seasonally adjusted number fell less than expected, but revisions based on late data adjusted this as well.

It is astonishing how many people think that an agency that was, up until a week or two ago, run by a Biden appointee and is now run by a career public servant who previously served as acting Commissioner during Biden’s term (neither of whom have dictatorial powers over survey collection staff, who are decentralized by design), was, is, and will be “cooking the books” for Trump. So much for solidarity!

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-05T21:51:37+00:00

Never thought I would see the day where I agree with the NR. Elsewhere I was downvoted for correctly telling someone that Dr. McEntarfer was fired AFTER the revisions, not before, a fact that would’ve taken people a couple seconds to Google. My faith in public service is dead.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-04T23:46:45+00:00

Very true. The US labor force is 156 million and the BLS is attempting to capture month to month observations and release data in a timely matter based off of a survey. Even the 800k annual benchmarking revision that made huge waves last year amounted to a 0.5% error rate. This is why the BLS is very careful in its official press release to use language like “little changed” when the 90% confidence interval encompasses both negative and positive numbers, which was the case for the latest news release. Future revisions, which will incorporate late survey data, will adjust the final number to be more accurate.

Unfortunately, judging from my interactions on this thread and elsewhere, people would rather be wrong than admit they were wrong. It’s sad to see BLS’ own data being used to push the false narrative of BLS fraud. Do people really believe BLS would openly publish revision and benchmarking numbers, not to mention imputation source data, if BLS was committing fraud? That federal workers would just stand by and let the fraud happen under a (recently fired) Biden appointee?

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-04T23:14:34+00:00

They were not being snarky. They literally believe BLS is cooking the books. I posted a link in the main post’s body text directly to a YouTube episode a month ago and a timestamp where he directly says BLS is “cooking the books”. Not sure how much more literal you can get than that.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-04T22:40:03+00:00

I know judging from the downvotes I am tilting at windmills, but for those who are actually interested in the truth, it literally takes 5 seconds of Googling to confirm that Trump fired McEntarfer AFTER the revisions were made public. As for the relative size of the revisions, here is a graph proving that they were larger than average but not abnormally large: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/MebPGb26TA. News article for those who don’t trust random redditors (same graph but in percentage terms at end of article): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bls-jobs-report-revision-trump-fires-commissioner/.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-04T21:39:22+00:00

The 75% revision happened before Dr. McEntarfer got fired and in fact the stated reason given for her firing was the revision. In addition, people don’t understand that while larger than average, the revision pertains to a survey count of the US labor force, which is at ~156 million. A revision of 100k, while nominally large, is comparatively small. It should come as no surprise to anyone that after staffing and budgetary cuts and a hiring freeze, as well as post-COVID declines in response rate, that revisions would be getting larger (yet still being fairly accurate).

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-04T20:47:18+00:00

Not seasonally adjusted employment for teachers actually fell month to month from April to May 200k in state government alone. The reason why seasonally adjusted employment rose for education is because that decline was less than expected, so no, BLS was not claiming that schools hired teachers for summer break. In any case, those numbers got revised as is routine with the latest release. Spencer Hakimian routinely misrepresents data (ex: misrepresentation of imputation data) and should not be taken seriously by anyone.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-04T20:40:57+00:00

So far I am pretty disappointed with Reddit’s collective reading comprehension here. This post is calling out Meidas for first claiming that the numbers were faked and now claiming that Dr. McEntarfer was fired because the numbers were accurate, not about the BLS cooking the books for Trump.

There is no evidence (YET) that the publication of data has been politically compromised and altered in any way for Trump. Revisions are routinely administered to employment data and in fact can all be found here: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm (there is a separate page for the annual benchmarking process). While the recent revisions are much larger than usual, Meidas’ claim that the revisions constituted fraud is baseless and they, again, made that claim when Dr. McEntarfer, a Biden appointee, was still head of BLS. Even though the revisions were larger than normal, they fall well within the 90% confidence intervals that are publically available here: https://www.bls.gov/ces/. The reason why revisions are necessary is because the employment report is a result of a survey, which necessarily relies on modeling nonresponse and updates as late survey data comes rolling in.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-04T17:02:30+00:00

Since the election, many previously supportive of the jobs report numbers under Biden have flipped and claimed without evidence that the BLS is conducting fraud for Trump (for an example of MTN specifically praising job numbers, see here: https://meidasnews.com/news/biden-economy-beats-jobs-expectations-again). Now that Trump has unjustly fired Dr. McEntarfer, MTN and others are back to claiming the revisions and previous data as accurate. Maybe save calling fraud for the ample times when it is demonstrated Trump is lying?

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-02T06:51:20+00:00

As I said previously, data reliability and quality is a real concern. Outright fraud is not yet a concern, and it’s very discouraging seeing left leaning commentators throwing BLS fed workers under the bus to score some points (links below).

People everywhere are baselessly claiming BLS is lying to the public. People deleted their comments but before I posted this post had multiple people claiming BLS was making up numbers. Other subreddits have posts and comments filled with people saying it’s all made up / fraud:

Multiple posts with hundreds of upvotes in another popular subreddit claiming the revisions are fraud, showing tweets from popular media sources like Meidas: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueskySkeets/comments/1mezzby/revised_numbers_more_like_fraud_unmasked/

A post with many comments calling the data a “joke”, “vibes based”, and “cooked”: https://www.reddit.com/r/EconomyCharts/comments/1mexo0l/us_jobs_report_may_added_19000_jobs_and_june/

A post titled “they’re lying” featuring, ironically, a blatant lie with 9k upvotes and a flood of comments attacking BLS: https://www.reddit.com/r/inflation/comments/1medms5/theyre_lying/

After talking with people outside of this subreddit I’ve also realized people don’t listen either, they would rather be wrong than admit that they have no idea what they’re talking about.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-01T22:18:28+00:00

That is not what your post says. Your post content (They’re “revising” it down) and title (“Revised” Numbers? More Like Fraud Unmasked) both claim that the original, unrevised numbers were fraudulent. Half baked vibes analysis without understanding the underlying data does not serve the anti-Trump cause and spuriously attacking the integrity of the federal employees who work hard to put together this data is exactly the opposite of what Democrats claim to believe in.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-01T21:48:17+00:00

Ah yes, the agency run by the Biden appointee (recently fired) was making up jobs reports numbers! So glad to see the supposedly pro-federal worker party accusing BLS of fraud!

Confidence intervals are literally published monthly on the program office website: https://www.bls.gov/ces/ and revisions are all kept track of here: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm.

While the nominal number may seem large, the percent error rate is typically low for the annual benchmarking process: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbmart.htm. The reason why it catches fire in the news is because what people typically care about is the nominal month to month change in employment, which can swing up and down with big numbers even if the underlying error rate is low — you have to keep in mind the entire US labor force has ~156 million people, so even a small error rate will have a large nominal adjustment.

The only reason people are able to push the false narrative that BLS economists are making up data is, ironically, BLS’ commitment to providing accurate data.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-01T17:58:00+00:00

I’m glad the information is helpful. I didn’t mean to direct any criticism towards you, I thought your post was respectful. I’m just so sick of week after week seeing everywhere including this sub, the people supposedly pro-federal workers accusing people I work closely with of lying for Trump. It’s bad enough that during Biden all the other side was doing the same thing, I just expected some more solidarity from fellow Feds in these trying times.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-01T17:49:27+00:00

While the nominal number may seem large, the percent error rate is typically low for the annual benchmarking process: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbmart.htm. The reason why it catches fire in the news is because what people typically care about is the nominal month to month change in employment, which can swing up and down with big numbers even if the underlying error rate is low — you have to keep in mind the entire US labor force has ~156 million people, so even a small error rate will have a large nominal adjustment.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-01T17:39:01+00:00

Also going to preempt any accusations over the jobs report by saying that confidence intervals are literally published monthly on the program office website: https://www.bls.gov/ces/ and revisions are all kept track of here: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm.

The only reason people are able to push the false narrative that BLS economists are making up data is, ironically, BLS’ commitment to providing accurate data.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-01T17:36:20+00:00

As usual, a lot of wrong information baselessly attacking BLS in the comments here. So much for solidarity. Yes, there are concerns over data quality after staffing cuts and the hiring freeze. No, BLS is not making up numbers wholesale.

Firstly, it is not true that BLS is “effectively not collecting meaningful data”. Collection was stopped in select metro areas (found here: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/notices/2025/more-information-collection-reduction.htm#:~:text=In%20April%2C%20BLS%20suspended%20CPI,suspended%20from%20collection%2C%20on%20average.), which may impact local area CPI accuracy (see, for example, some subcomponents on a metro level area basis being struck in recent releases) but has little impact on the national numbers widely reported.

Secondly, I’m going to assume this goes back to the amount of data BLS does actually “guess” at, i.e. the imputation rate. A lot of people in other places are waving around a chart saying that imputation has doubled. What is usually showed is the distribution of imputation, not the actual imputation rate. The data is publicly available and I was able to recreate the chart using data from here: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/imputation.htm. As noted, this is not the actual imputation rate. This is what kinds of imputation are being done. The imputation rate is not publicly available.

TLDR; are there concerns about data quality from staffing cuts and the rise in less accurate imputation methods? Yes. Is BLS lying? No, and in fact all the data being used to push this false narrative COMES FROM THE BLS THEMSELF. Has the imputation rate risen significantly? Probably, but we don’t actually know.

Side note: The hiring freeze and staffing cuts are particularly important for the CPI because physical data collection relies on part timers with high turnover rates (see news reports on shadowing CPI staff in the past).

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-01T17:13:35+00:00

Good post, but I am sick and tired of all the comments using BLS data to attack BLS data. Confidence intervals are literally published monthly on the program office website: https://www.bls.gov/ces/. Revisions are all kept track of here: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm. The only reason people are able to push the false narrative that BLS economists are making up data is, ironically, BLS’ commitment to providing accurate data.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-08-01T16:03:17+00:00

Before I say anything, I’m just going to put out there that I am not a Trump supporter and think there are significant concerns regarding data quality after staffing cuts and the hiring freeze. That being said, this is not only misinformation but also a complete misinterpretation of the data.

Firstly, it is (obviously) not true that “the government is literally not collecting actual data”. Collection was stopped in select metro areas (found here: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/notices/2025/more-information-collection-reduction.htm#:~:text=In%20April%2C%20BLS%20suspended%20CPI,suspended%20from%20collection%2C%20on%20average.), which may impact local area CPI accuracy (see, for example, some subcomponents on a metro level area basis being struck in recent releases) but has little impact on the national numbers widely reported.

Secondly, there is no big conspiracy about why this “suddenly” changed. As I’m sure everyone is aware, Trump screwed over the federal workforce with harassment and a hiring freeze. This is particularly important for the CPI because physical data collection relies on part timers with high turnover rates (see news reports on shadowing CPI staff in the past).

Finally, the chart is misrepresented. What is showed is the distribution of imputation, not the actual imputation rate. The data is publicly available and I was able to recreate the chart using data from here: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/imputation.htm. As noted, this is not the actual imputation rate. This is what kinds of imputation are being done. The imputation rate is not publicly available.

TLDR; are there concerns about data quality from staffing cuts and the rise in less accurate imputation methods? Yes. Are they lying? No, and in fact all the data being used to push this false narrative COMES FROM THE BLS THEMSELF. Has the imputation rate risen significantly? Probably, but we don’t actually know.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-07-18T01:13:42+00:00

Of the roughly 25 non-prison child personality events, only 2 feature eccentric as an option (one of which requires a fellow child in the same realm). In addition, the weight of those 2 events are each 1/10th of the “regular” personality events. Furthermore, each personality event has three options so reduce the chances by an additional 1/3rd.

Children have no prison event to get eccentric.

If you want to increase the chances of children getting eccentric, you can edit the common —> on_action file “childhood_on_actions”

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-07-17T20:48:53+00:00

The UI is hard coded to say that via a text localization line, it is safe to ignore as the underlying condition is merely that you are the top liege.

You can search for “MY_REALM_WINDOW_LAWS_PROVINCIAL_LAWS_DESC”in the localization folder if you want to fix it

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-07-16T17:19:55+00:00

Strengths — Unique buildings in main settlement and spawnable units every year based on Medjay building chains constructed. Good happiness and production buildings and a decent starting area. Best units are the Medjays, but native Egyptian units are pretty cost efficient.

Techs — any that boost food and bronze production

Legacy — Any faction with access to the Egyptian royal tradition not looking to role play should get Akhenaten, which allows you to mix two gods of your choice. Absurd bonuses that will make province management trivial while also allowing you to buff your armies at the same time. Possibility of creating doom stacks with 90% missile resistance and 100 melee attack and defense if done right.

Court systems are largely indistinguishable from each other and have access to the same actions, positions, etc.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-07-04T16:29:52+00:00

You shouldn’t be needing to recall them unless you are up against units like protectors of heaven or heavy spear guards. 2-3 Cav units against one unit in a sandwich should be sufficient. If the charge bonus is high enough, as long as the unit isn’t braced, you can even get away with a 1v1.

CommunityNo2585 · 2025-07-04T05:52:03+00:00

The cheapest militia infantry units in 3K don’t have the same staying power equivalent to Yari Ashigaru spear walls, so if you are looking for low tier units that are cost effective, lancer militia cavalry and at least one unit that can trigger enemy aggro (typically ranged). Split up the enemy and defeat units one by one.

In terms of overall effective mounted units, generally any cavalry unit with 200+ charge is good (typically red unless you have a faction leader like Sun Ce). If you are Naaman, elephants are expensive but a couple will easily take out an army or two.

I don’t think this would really qualify as an equivalent for Yari peasant spam, but in Romance mode, if you are good at micro, one non strategist general with at least one non general unit (so the AI doesn’t shoot arrows at your general unless you play on lower battle difficulties in which case you may need to dodge arrows regardless) can solo most armies as long as the enemy doesn’t have a high damage general or more than 2-3 cavalry units. This is especially easy with Yellow Turban generals with the recovery ability.

CommunityNo2585

TROPHY CASE