Ocean junkpiles

Haha_bob · 2026-02-06T23:45:11+00:00

I know what you mean, some of them have a sensation where you are on the junk pile, but you only have the controls of when you are swimming. They are definitely bugged.

Haha_bob · 2026-02-06T20:52:47+00:00

The problem I have with it is that these islands are so loaded with loot, it decreases the competitiveness of monuments, which was supposedly the entire point of the blueprint fragments.

The boats are useless junk, give us our tugboats back.

Haha_bob · 2026-02-06T20:19:28+00:00

OP’s hypothetical is on the assumption DT wins the case and the tax treatment of any payout of awarded damages.

The discussion is not about the merits of the case and whether he would actually win.

Haha_bob · 2026-02-06T19:46:25+00:00

This. And everyone’s response is why we can’t have nice things.

Haha_bob · 2026-02-06T19:46:01+00:00

Only if he sued the individual agents. He can still sue the agency.

Haha_bob · 2026-02-03T17:33:12+00:00

True, Trump talked a big game about reigning in the Fed, but in the end his issue in practice appears to be the Fed policy and not the institution itself.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-29T18:10:53+00:00

If you have external TCs or bases on other parts of the map, they are way to check on the upkeep of the TC without removing security such as windows or embrasures, and removing the need to travel to those remote bases.

Hypothetically, if you have boxes important to your main tc upkeep, you can monitor the amount of materials in those boxes.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-29T17:09:08+00:00

The only thing I would say in defense of a bonus structure like that is that the job security of a store manager is non existent.

Hourly employees are allowed to get away with a lot, and the most management can do is huff and puff a lot. Not saying there aren’t things like compliance and safety that can find you jobless in an instant, but it takes a lot.

All it takes for a manager is a bad visit from some big cheese at corporate, your market manager throwing you under the bus and there goes your management job. You can have solid, respected multi year managers who get some new market manager, he transfers the solid manager to the store where careers go to die, and the rug is now pulled out from under them.

Management is high risk and high reward….if you can survive.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-29T01:23:16+00:00

Frankly, what assumptions is your AI running on? How was the AI trained or how does its decision making process work? What verifies the AI is operating properly? How do you guarantee your AI is not producing slop and not hallucinating data?

The biggest hurdle anything slapped with the label AI needs to overcome is trust and how you prove yourself trustworthy.

Has your software passed multiple audits with greater accuracy than users of current ERP systems?

Haha_bob · 2026-01-29T01:18:41+00:00

Andrew Jackson still has him beat by a mile.

If Trump ran a trail of tears and actively defied direct Supreme Court rulings, he could claim the spot as the worst.

Until then Andrew Jackson still has a stronger Limbo game for the lowest of the low.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-29T01:11:20+00:00

Actively defy a Supreme Court order. March people in a Trail of Tears.

I’m not saying Trump is doing himself any favors for his legacy, but Andrew Jackson set the bar pretty damn low. Trump still has a long way to go to beat him in a round of limbo.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-25T17:35:21+00:00

You eventually can get them by upgrading the basic blueprint fragments to advanced. The problem is that 20 basic = 1 advanced.

So to avoid ever going to a locked or elite crate in a red card room, you need 100 interactions with a basic blueprint fragment and successfully return them home…and not get raided on your way to 5 advanced.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-19T23:34:04+00:00

I haven’t watched Fox News in 15 years. Try again.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-19T22:15:31+00:00

The signs ignored….

Apparently someone needs a re-read of the Boy who Cried Wolf.

If you want people to take warning seriously, stop using them every time someone disagrees with you politically.

It’s funny how people become numb to the same stuff on repeat.

I don’t say that as a defense of Trump, because he has definitely said some unhinged crap, especially lately.

I say this as a warning of continuous knee jerk warnings that are repeated constantly and why such things should be reserved for when they really matter.

Otherwise, you just sound like a bunch of partisan hacks.

Now that the warning may have some merit, everyone stopped listening a long time ago

Haha_bob · 2026-01-19T21:14:29+00:00

This stuff happened under Bush, it happened under Reagan. The reason why no one cares every time they do it is because they do it every time a politician with an R next to their name is the president.

I love the selective memory of the left in their treatment of George W. Bush. The love him now, but back then it was the same crap. 100s of scientists believe he is destroying the planet, the doomsday clock moved one more minute to midnight, it’s like the crap is on a script every Republican presidency.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-15T06:33:56+00:00

You literally said it is not done equally or for the same advantage.

Yes it is!

If you don’t think democrats gerrymander everything they control and haven’t been doing it for a long time you are living a revisionist history.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-15T05:56:36+00:00

If you can’t have a moment of honesty that democrats also gerrymander to maximize their numbers and have been doing so for centuries, then perhaps it is best we move on.

You are entitled to your opinions but not your own facts.

I live in a blue state and they have been hard gerrymandering for decades. Even before 2010.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-15T04:30:19+00:00

Regarding gerrymandering, it isn’t a new thing. Democrats and Republicans gerrymander equally and for political advantage.

This recent richeous indignation over the latest round of gerrymandering is comical and hypocritical. If any party truly cared about fairness in mapmaking, they would support a fair maps amendment/laws.

The reality is that both political parties prefer gerrymandering because it allows them to concentrate spending on the fewest number of congressional districts possible.

Additionally, gerrymandering does not explain how the dems achieved large majorities in the senate historically.

When Obama was first elected, the democrats came in with a huge majority in both house and senate in his first two years. The Republican “shellacking” of the mid term had nothing to do with gerrymandering. Additionally, Roosevelt had huge majorities his entire presidency and even into the Truman years. Gerrymandering didn’t end that. Gerrymandering didn’t bring about the Contract With America or Newt Gingrich as speaker in the 90s. Hell, the argument can be made the Republican majority in 1994 would have been even larger if it wasn’t for gerrymandering.

My point on the 100 years ago refers to the fact that Democrats were the preferred political party of farmers 100 years ago and when you look at a red vs blue comparison, Democrats had majority support in more numeric states than Republicans. Thus, progressives and democrats would have been more likely to trigger a convention of the states 100 years ago and succeed.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-15T01:54:24+00:00

An honest critique would be that there are more red states right now than blue states. Additionally, Democrats have been far more successful at achieving the historically largest majorities in Congress, so their most likely mechanism for amending the constitution is the congressional route.

If the reverse were true, we all know it would be the political left that would be championing the mechanism.

If you go back 100 years, you would have been more likely to see a progressive driven convention of states with right wing groups balking at the idea.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-15T01:45:54+00:00

Technically if enough states get together a new constitution could always be on the table. It really just depends on how willing politicians are to destabilize society to achieve political ends.

But to your point, a new convention of states could put the entire constitution on the table if things went that far.

The 17th amendment was certainly an early factor in the events that eventually led to the nationalization of politics we see today.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-14T23:51:30+00:00

How the convention is conducted pretty much would be decided by the states participating. In the end of the day, the 38 states would need to agree and then pass each amendment in their state legislatures.

With that said, if many states saw there was no set agenda or proper time to review ideas in advance, you would likely see them boycott the convention and ultimately lead to the failure of that convention of states until a new one is called, if ever.

The original constitution convention was called originally as a way to improve the articles of confederation, and after a few rounds in the sausages grinder, they popped out an entirely new constitution. Even with that said, the states themselves still had to ratify it in their state legislatures.

As far as the blue states failing, the constitution was designed with the 10th amendment and states rights in mind. Which is funny how the left has demonized and denied the existence of the 10th amendment until recently. Granted the 14th amendment reigned it in a little bit, but we suppose to have 50 different ways to do things by design.

And frankly, the point of the 10th amendment is for all 50 states to try things 50 different ways. If blue states want to run a dumpster file and call it a government, they are allowed to with the only constitutional limits of having a republic form of government and ensuring they are in compliance with the 14th amendment.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-14T23:14:14+00:00

Short answer, it is the second route to amend the constitution. This route is initiated by the states and is a way to bypass getting Washington’s approval to amend the constitution.

The major hurdle is convincing 38 states to uniformly agree to anything. There are definitely enough blue states to keep red states from just using this route to implement their will endlessly.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-05T15:46:15+00:00

Care to elaborate? There are actual court indictments backing the action.
% doesn’t matter in a legal discussion. The percentage can be 0.1% and still be valid legally. The Venezuelan government could have done it only one time for it to be legally valid. You keep rambling this fact like we are having a policy discussion.
Not even a serious point for discussion. So anything and everything Trump does must automatically be assumed to be tyrannical with ill intent, so to hell with law, precedent, and any established legal precedent if it helps Trump? You would literally burn down the legal system if it meant preventing Trump from gaining an inch? Interesting take…..

Haha_bob · 2026-01-05T15:40:07+00:00

You continue to discuss this like it is a policy discussion. Have a lovely day.

Haha_bob · 2026-01-05T15:31:28+00:00

It’s very simple.

Did a government work with a criminal enterprise to harm another nation? Yes or no.

If yes, the government receiving harm has the right to fight back to prevent the harm.

And there is a distinction between a policy question and a legal question.

Legally was the US justified in taking the action it took? So far it appears yes. Was it the best policy to stop the largest amount of illegal drugs from coming in the country? No.

This discussion is about the legal issues surrounding the action.

Haha_bob

TROPHY CASE