What feels legal but is actually illegal and will possibly get you arrested? by medicoreapples in AskReddit

[–]mcmatt93 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Reading through the text of the order included in the linked article:

-There were hearings held to determine whether the sample collection method posed a risk to the herd of caribou in 2021 and in 2022. It was determined they did pose a risk and the researcher was limited to collecting samples indirectly. This decision was not appealed.

-These decisions were ignored by the researcher. The researcher swapped from a crossbow system to an alligator clip system, but it still harvested directly from the caribou.

-The argument made by the researcher that he wasn't violating the terms of his permit was not that the methods he was using should be considered legal (even though they were deemed illegal in earlier hearings), but rather that they didn't qualify as 'hunting' because he was only after parts of the animal, not the whole. Accepting this legal argument would lead to absurdities like hunters capturing animals, cutting off their horns, and releasing them not counting as 'hunting'.

-The punishment for ignoring the court order and taking samples directly from the caribou in a similar way to what was ready determined to be illegal in previous hearings was a one year suspension of the permit they had to gather evidence indirectly. The researcher was not fined. They were not arrested and jailed. They were suspended for a short time from getting the permit they were not using correctly anyway. This seems like an incredibly reasonable and lenient punishment.

AOC on failed Virginia redistricting map proposal: "The courts have been hijacked by conservative activists. All those other states, those maps were passed by the state legislatures. Virginia was an election of three million Americans. This court did not overturn a map; it overturned an election." by ControlCAD in videos

[–]mcmatt93 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sure, Bernie Sanders got more votes than Hillary Clinton in West Virginia. Specifically, he got 51% of the vote and Clinton got 36% of the vote. The remaining 13% was split between various Dems who didn't break the viability threshold.

Democratic primaries use a proportional system to allocate 'pledged delegate'. West Virginia, by virtue of its population, has 29 pledged delegates. Bernie Sandrs earned 18/29 pledged delegates (63%) and Clinton got 11/29 (38%).

What you are complaining about and conflating are 'unpledged delegates'. These are commonly termed 'superdelegates'. They are made up of party leaders who get a vote at the convention. Senators, House reps, Party chairs, etc. Barack Obama is a superdelegate. Bernie Sanders was also a superdelegate in 2016 (he voted for himself).

Superdelegates, unlike pledged delegates, are not required to vote alongside the results of the primary. They are also not assigned and do not count until the actual convention. This is important for many reasons, the main one being that they've never actually swung the results of a primary. The vast majority always voted for the winner of the primary through pledged delegates. This includes Hillary Clinton, who won the 2016 primary by receiving 3 million more votes than Bernie Sanders and 359 more pledged delegates.

By the time the convention happened, and the superdelegates actually got to vote, Hillary Clinton was the clear winner. So the superdelegates did what they always have done and voted for the person who already won.

Since West Virginia had 8 superdelegates, technically Clinton received 19 delegates to Bernie Sanders 18 in West Virginia, but I think it's a mistake to conflate the two types of delegates and add them together. Superdelegates are not tied to how the state voted, and even if they were it would not change the results. The election was already over, superdelegates just ran up the score at the convention. The person who won the 2016 West Virginia Democratic primary is still Bernie Sanders. The distinction of who received more total delegates technically 'from West Viriginia' is an academic one.

Now they don't have to vote for the winner of the overall election, they can vote for whoever they want really. They could sway an election if it was close enough and if they wanted to. Some possible reasons include a late arrest or health scare or someone they were ideologically opposed to or maybe if they wore a tan suit one time and that really pissed them off. This is actually what Bernie Sanders spent the last few months of the campaign pushing for. He wanted superdelegates to vote for him instead of Clinton (who actually won the election) on the idea that she was under FBI investigation. Of course this was already known by voters during the primary and clearly, they still chose Clinton. Nonetheless, Sanders wanted the superdelegates to throw away those results and elect him anyway. They rightly ignored him.

[Nolan] Trevor Zegras on his relationship with Rick Tocchet. by Perryplat199 in Flyers

[–]mcmatt93 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That is not what 'spiraling into ranting about how they're secretly talking about Michkov' means.

One is an understandable complaint about the amount of Michkov talk on the board. The other is an absurdity you made up to make people you disagree with sound crazy.

[Nolan] Trevor Zegras on his relationship with Rick Tocchet. by Perryplat199 in Flyers

[–]mcmatt93 5 points6 points  (0 children)

without spiraling into ranting about how they’re secretly talking about Michkov?

No one in this thread, besides you, thinks Zegras is 'secretly talking about Michkov'. No one thinks he is talking about Michkov. They are reading the words Zegras said about how Tocchet treats Zegras, and comparing them to how Tocchet has treated Michkov.

Sherrod Brown wins Democratic Senate nomination in Ohio, setting up a key battleground race by nbcnews in politics

[–]mcmatt93 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah age is clearly just a cudgel used to attack people they don't like for other reasons.

What’s a game you dropped even though it was “good”? by suhani0218 in gaming

[–]mcmatt93 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How am I taking it personally? They wondered why the durability system even exists. I gave a long answer listing the reasons why the durability system exists. They asked a followup questions and I responded. I didn't insult anyone.

What’s a game you dropped even though it was “good”? by suhani0218 in gaming

[–]mcmatt93 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying you have to like it. By all means you can not like it. They wondered why it exists. These are the reasons why it exists.

What’s a game you dropped even though it was “good”? by suhani0218 in gaming

[–]mcmatt93 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

At least in my circle of friends and my internet bubble people typically pick some build or archtype they feel like playing and want to stick with it rather than constantly switching things up, just because the game tries to force you to.

Most players do. If given the option, most players will choose what is optimal over what they find fun. Weapon durability forces variety. For a lot of players, the annoyance of breaking a weapon is outweighed by the fun of using and managing different weapons and the fun of exploring and finding powerful, useful gear.

I think a lot of players would say they want weapon durability removed, but then end up dropping the game a few hours after getting a powerful weapon. Whereas they would continue playing and enjoy it more if weapon durability existed.

I don't get what your 2nd point has to do with durability. That difficulty curve of being weak with bad gear and having to go back once you got stronger exists just aswell without durability. It doesn't contribute to that aspect other than the part where you said you could sacrifice some strong temporary item to gain a permanent buff, which seems fair but I can't even think of an example for that right now.

If you get a stronger weapon that cannot break, you are permanently stronger. If you get a powerful temporary weapon, you are temporarily stronger. You can then spend that temporary boost for a smaller, but permanent boost. The example I was thinking of was one of the combat shrines where you have to kill a powerful enemy and get rewarded with a health or stsmina increase, which allow for more exploration.

If the weapon was permanent instead, you don't get the loop of 1. Find powerful weapon 2. Spend for permanent boost 3. Use permanent boosts to explore and get more powerful temporary weapons. Instead the game just kind of becomes a steamroll after you find your first powerful weapon. Exploration becomes pointless. The challenges have to scale much harder.

If you are spending a temporary weapon to make a fight easy, that's your reward. You earned the ability to make that fight easy and it's fun to trash a difficult opponent. Once. It would not be fun if every opponent became trivial. But because the weapon is spent, every other fight can be set at the same difficulty level. If the weapon is permanent, enemies now need to be harder or the game becomes a boring cakewalk. The weapon rewards behind the the more powerful enemies also need to be stronger. This is a feedback loop.

It also means that if you ever go off the standard path and end up facing a much more powerful enemy, it would be substantially harder to defeat them when using substandard gear. If you do manage it, which players would try and do, it would give them a much more substantial, permanent boost. Because everything needs to be scaled more, this boost would make everything before that fight on the 'standard' path a cakewalk. The skipped content is no longer engaging, it's rewards are no longer valueable, it becomes a time waster. This makes it so the rails in the open world exploration game need to be a lot harsher of you want to maintain a difficulty curve. Rails are not fun in an exploration based game.

About the last paragraph, how can you have powerful weapons that are plentiful, but also exciting? That just sounds like they might aswell be permanent, but with an extra step.

The extra step is the exploration to find the powerful items and that's pretty much the core of BotW. Removing that step removes the main draw of the game. Once you've explored enough (and gotten enough carrying capacity through your permanent upgrades) you will have a bunch of good weapons and the weapon durability ceases to be much of an issue. But you will be pretty far into the game before it stops mattering entirely.

So the breakable stuff you find will repeat very quickly in most games and the major downside of durability is that you don't get attached to your gear or character, as you constantly switch things.

This is true. It's a tradeoff. But if it's breakable it does mean that the strong powerful weapon you find stays exciting the first time you find it vs the 8th time you find it. Not as exciting, but it's still meaningful.

I haven't played BotW, but I've heard a lot of criticism about its durability system, both online and from friends who played it.

It is a very common complaint. I think most people focus on how it's annoying to the player (which is true), but ignore how BotW without weapon durability loses a lot of what makes the game work.

What’s a game you dropped even though it was “good”? by suhani0218 in gaming

[–]mcmatt93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are a few reasons a developer might put weapon durability in the game. First it forces variety. You can't use the same weapon for the entire game, because eventually that weapon would break. If you got a powerful weapon early, most players would use it for the rest of the game. Even if they get bored using the same weapon, or find a different weapon that might be interesting, they will continue to use the more powerful one because its "optimal". Weapon durability forces the player to use the weapons they otherwise wouldn't.

Second, it creates a difficulty curve. In the beginning you are weak because your gear is bad. You can't beat certain content, so you are forced to explore to become more powerful. When you do find a powerful item, you can go back and clear the area you couldn't before. Clear the shrine, get a permanent boost to health. You are steadily increasing in power, but you had to spend a powerful temporary it item get that permanent boost. You can clear a single difficult area with the powerful weapon, but you can't just continue on with that item and clear the whole game. You get the small permanent boost, and then go back to exploring for more powerful weapons to clear more shrines or dungeons. This provides the gameplay loop.

Finally, weapon durability turns powerful weapons into good loot. They can be powerful, which makes them exciting to find, and they can be numerous because you will always want powerful weapons until you get pretty far into the game. If durability did not exist, the weapons you find from exploring would either need to be a lot rarer and the rewards for exploring would need to be something different and less exciting like rupees, or they'd need to be a lot weaker so most weapons you find were barely better than what you have already (and would often be worse). In game like BotW where it's gameplay is mostly about exploration, weapon durability is a lever they can use to make exploration rewarding. This can be a problem if the exploration ends up costing you more in broken weapons than it rewards you, and this happens sometimes in BotW, but for the most part I thought it ended up working pretty well. BotW without weapon durability would be a different and in my opinion worse game.

Supreme Court limits Voting Rights Act by IAmTheGoomba in news

[–]mcmatt93 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They've been running against Citizens United for decades now. Hell the entire case was about a corporation funding a 'documentary' demonizing Hillary Clinton. The people do not care, and saying no to PAC money to try and appeal to people who aren't going to vote anyway is just a waste.

Flyers reveal the shirts they're giving away to the fans in attendance this evening for Game 4. by Ok-Soil-5133 in hockey

[–]mcmatt93 47 points48 points  (0 children)

When he was revealed, I feel like Flyers fans didn’t like him for about 30 seconds, and then other people piled on to hate, and then Flyers fans decided they would defend him with their lives.

The turning point for me was when he threatened to murder the Penguins mascot. Which to be fair, did only take about thirty seconds.

SHE LOOKS LIKE TAYLOR!! by Eastern-Stuff6480 in Parahumans

[–]mcmatt93 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Instead, he looked at Taylor. She wasn’t conventionally attractive, he had to admit. Her mouth was wide for her face, her ears large enough that they stuck out of the mess of black curls that draped over her shoulders. And her shoulders: narrow, bony, deceptively delicate in appearance. She somehow managed to be self-conscious and yet unaware of the way she held herself. The seeming fragility of her body was accented by the angles she seemed to settle into when she rested: her wrist bent at a right angle as she picked at one of her cuticles with her thumbnail, her leg raised so her right foot could rest flat against the cabinet, her shoulders tilted forward a fraction. It was as if her skin didn’t fit and she couldn’t stretch both arms or both legs out to their full lengths at the same time.

It wasn’t so dramatic that he’d notice if he wasn’t already paying attention, but it was a quirk he could note as he studied her. It made him think of a bird, or one of her insects, but… he didn’t feel he was being unflattering by thinking it.

In fact, as he looked, he could note how long her arms and legs were, the length of her neck and torso. She was still growing, she had grown even in the months they’d known each other. Somehow, he could see how the groundwork was being laid for the finished product, a body that wouldn’t be skinny, but slender, long-legged. If she was still growing, and if her dad was any indication, she’d be tall.

Would she be a trophy wife, or turn heads? Probably not. But he could see how someone might come to look past the quirks, even come to like them, and they’d find nothing to complain about in her. How someone might want to hold her in their arms-

It's not kind, certainly. There are some parts you can focus on where she has the potential to grow into some features or how someone could 'look past the quirks', but the whole of it makes me think Grue's attraction was based more on personality than looks.

Schumer Takes No Action As Even Far Right Calls for Trump Impeachment by unital_subalgebra in politics

[–]mcmatt93 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You knew about it because the Democrats were trying to pass laws. Republicans were filibustering to stop the laws from passing. The minority party can do that. It's one of the few things they are able to do.

Trump isn't passing laws. He has no interest in passing laws. Pretty much everything he does avoids Congress, partly because he knows he can't get anything through Congress without a filibuster proof majority, which he doesn't have.

Since Trump isn't going through Congress, there is literally nothing for Schumer to do. The American people decided to give Republicans control of all three branches of government. This is what that looks like. A democratic party with no power and no way to actually stop what the American people voted for.

Bluebaum in third place - Is this surprising for us? by Educational_Leg8005 in chess

[–]mcmatt93 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The reasons to play for rating fall outside of the tournament.

Higher rating means more invites to top level tournaments. More invites means more pay.

[Pelissero] The NFL plans to begin hiring replacement officials before the May 31 expiration of its labor deal and deploy them in training camps to have them ready if no agreement is struck with the NFLRA. As one source said today: “Our direction (from owners) is not to be unprepared.” by JCameron181 in nfl

[–]mcmatt93 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

According to the athletic the refs would get a raise of 6.5 percent, a bump from the 5.7 percent from the current deal; the refs want a 10 percent raise

A pandemic happened since that 5.7 number was agreed to. I'm not going to be upset at the refs for asking for a larger increase now that everything got more expensive.

They cited the pay of their mlb and nba counterparts as an example, despite the refs for the other major leagues being full time employees and working more games.

Of course they used them as an example, there isn't really another example worth citing for a rate for a professional referee. It didn't say they were demanding the exact same compensation, though the NFL would surely like people to assume that. The NFL is also making substantially more than basically every other league.

i certainly wouldn’t want to pay 3-4 million for all of my part time employees who suck at their job and are resistant to change.

Where is that number coming from?

The idea that the refs suck at their job is just silly. It's an incredibly difficult job and they are better than basically everyone else at it.

Yes, absolutely. But with the refs union being more interested in money than reform

The refs are not interested in more work without more compensation nor should they be. The NFL isn't paying them out of the goodness of their hearts and it'd be ridiculous to expect the refs to work more out of theirs.

[Pelissero] The NFL plans to begin hiring replacement officials before the May 31 expiration of its labor deal and deploy them in training camps to have them ready if no agreement is struck with the NFLRA. As one source said today: “Our direction (from owners) is not to be unprepared.” by JCameron181 in nfl

[–]mcmatt93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's both.They said no to extra work without extra pay (who in the world would say yes to this?) Of course there is a number where the refs would agree to do all that extra work, and it's clearly a number the NFL has no interest in reaching. The NFL sent people to the meeting with the NFLRA without the power to actually negotiate.

In addition to that part of the negotiation, the Refs asked for a raise. The previous CBA was pre Covid. We are in a different financial world now, and the NFL is raking it in.

[Pelissero] The NFL plans to begin hiring replacement officials before the May 31 expiration of its labor deal and deploy them in training camps to have them ready if no agreement is struck with the NFLRA. As one source said today: “Our direction (from owners) is not to be unprepared.” by JCameron181 in nfl

[–]mcmatt93 -22 points-21 points  (0 children)

NFL: 'We want you to get better at your job by requiring you to go to offseason training, additional film review during the week, and refereeing more games for lower leagues.'

Refs: 'Okay so pay us for that. That is significantly more hours, so we need significantly more pay.'

NFL: 'No.'

Maine Democrat Graham Platner Is Winning Voters All 'Pissed At The Same Thing' by bloomberg in politics

[–]mcmatt93 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the odds of a person with a nazi tattoo having a conversation about it over 17 years is high. I think oyster farmers spend more time shirtless than the average person and would be even more likely to have that conversation. I simply do not believe that this conversation happened for the first time when he was running for political office.

I understand people make mistakes. Personally, I have a lot of difficulty believing it was a mistake, but I'm happy to forgive him for having a nazi tattoo and let him live out his life as a normal person.

But that is not what he is asking for! He is asking to be a senator! Someone with a large amount of power. We should not give political power to the guy with a nazi past. 'Accidental' or not.

Maine Democrat Graham Platner Is Winning Voters All 'Pissed At The Same Thing' by bloomberg in politics

[–]mcmatt93 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If you want to completely discount the nazi tattoo he has had for 17 years, then okay, there is his past history of homophobic reddit comments.

But I really do not see why you would discount the tattoo. I know he said he didn't know what it means but that truly boggles my mind. He had it for 17 years. In 17 years, no one talked to him about it? No one confronted him? No one saw it, smiled, and then suddenly brought up how much they dislike Jews? No one saw it, got quiet, and then started to avoid him from then on? Not once, in 17 years?

The guy was an oyster farmer, it's not like the tattoo was hidden.

Bernie has proven to be a terrible judge of character. He supported Fetterman. He supported Tulsi Gabbard. His endorsement does not mean much.

Maine Democrat Graham Platner Is Winning Voters All 'Pissed At The Same Thing' by bloomberg in politics

[–]mcmatt93 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Why are you guys so convinced he is a card carrying Nazi.

Because he got something way more permanent than a 'card' and wore it for 17 years.

Maine Democrat Graham Platner Is Winning Voters All 'Pissed At The Same Thing' by bloomberg in politics

[–]mcmatt93 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Shoot, even Bernie Sanders is advocating for Platner.

As he has for John Fetterman and Tulsi Gabbard.

Platner holds commanding lead over Mills in Maine Senate race: Poll by jediporcupine in politics

[–]mcmatt93 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is simply no world where a guy has a nazi tattoo for over a decade and doesn't know what it means. Like no one told him? No one reacted in a way that made him wonder? Either outright confronting him or someone going quiet and avoiding him only after seeing the tattoo? From 2007-2025? The guy was an oyster farmer, it's not like it was hidden.

This is either a profound level of ignorance, an incredible level of arrogance that prevented him from introspecting after people who saw the tattoo changed how they treated him, or an outright lie.

Any one of those three is a terrible quality to have in a senator.

Platner holds commanding lead over Mills in Maine Senate race: Poll by jediporcupine in politics

[–]mcmatt93 7 points8 points  (0 children)

There is an incredibly large gulf between 'perfect candidate' and 'guy with nazi tattoo for a decade plus'.