obligatory
monotremata
joined 1 year ago
It's not exactly the same, but Slay the Spire scratched some of the same itch for me. It's got the same meta-structure as FTL, but the fights use a deck-builder format. It's really well done.
One Step From Eden seemed like it should be even better for me, since it borrows the positional strategy stuff from the Mega Man Battle Network games, but I couldn't get into it. Mostly I remember it being just way too fast. I really wanted to like it, but basically didn't.
And yeah, as someone else mentioned, Advance Wars is good, too. The thing that Into the Breach did that Advance Wars didn't, for me, was that Advance Wars basically depended on the AI being a bit crap so that you could overcome an initial disadvantage and work up to victory. Into the Breach gets around that by making the enemy wholly predictable instead, which is arguably more fun. The only other game I know of that worked that way was an Android game called Auro, but I don't think that's playable anymore and I believe the dev has abandoned it. It's a shame, as it was really well made.
Other than that... you could try learning Go (aka igo, baduk, or weiqi). It's a board game with very simple rules, but very deep strategy that emerges from those rules. The main disadvantage is that it's multiplayer only, but there are puzzles, problems, and AIs you can use to turn it into a solo time killer.
I don't even get how they have the authority to do this. Measure 110 was enacted as an amendment to the Oregon constitution, so it seems like it would require another amendment to rescind that and recriminalize possession.
I mostly agree with you. The AND was kind of crammed in outside the list too, though; they'd written it as NOT bullet: limit 1, bullet: limit 2, AND bullet: limit 3. Basically I don't think it's implausible that they intended it to be maximally restrictive and just screwed that up. I just think that applying the law as though it means that requires interpreting the law differently from how it's written, and different in a way that harms the defendants, which you previously weren't supposed to do. Which seems super dumb.
I wasn't suggesting the lawyers or the Justices should have talked about DeMorgan's law, but rather that it would have been a helpful point for Mother Jones to bring up in the article, to make sure people are on the same page about the logic. You're right that the notation is probably not helpful though.
The actual legal argument is pretty simple. The law as written is maximally lenient, but also not very logically consistent (e.g. the redundancy indicated in the article). So it seems like some kind of error occurred in the law-writing process. The question is whether they actually meant to write it as maximally restrictive or whether they screwed up in some other way. That certainly seems like ambiguity (a stance supported by the evidence that multiple courts decided these cases in different ways), and the prior standard was that in the case of ambiguity, you had to interpret the law to the benefit of the defendants, which here would be maximally lenient, and indeed also as written. The supreme court has basically reversed that, saying that you can interpret it as maximally restrictive as long as you're pretty sure that's what they meant to say. That's a very different standard.
I think this case is maybe the equivalent of that photo of a striped dress that blew up the Internet a few years ago. Nobody thinks it's particularly ambiguous, but they come to totally different conclusions about what the obvious correct answer is; just because the ambiguity isn't necessarily obvious to the individual reader doesn't mean it's not there.
Yeah, I feel like the article should have made reference to De Morgan's Law in order to explain the two interpretations. That's the one that says !(A && B && C) = !A || !B || !C, and !(A || B || C) = !A && !B && !C.
In English, there's no proper grouping operator, so it's basically it's a question of whether you distribute the NOT or the AND first over the list.
The Justices are saying that the ambiguity is completely resolved by the way the restrictions don't make sense if you interpret it the other way. But the underlying assumption there is that the laws of this country are logical, free from needless repetition and contradictory requirements, which is a TERRIBLE assumption. Our laws are at best written by a committee of people not very familiar with the subjects of those laws, and at worst written by scam artists who then paid to slip them under the radar and into the books. They're full of idiotic errors, deliberate sabotage, and absurdities. That's the whole reason for the thing about the lenient interpretation, and this decision will change that in a way that gives judges a whole lot of power to do more harm.
And for those thinking that maybe time could have turned the THCA into delta-9 THC, that's true, it could have; but time would also turn that delta-9 THC into CBN. So the delta-9 levels would be unlikely to have increased much over the baseline regardless of how old the weed was.
They're actually kind of doing that in the E. Jean Carroll case. His "appeal bond" has to be 110% of the judgment award, so he has to put up 91.6 million instead of the 83.3 million she was awarded. My understanding is that the extra is to cover the interest that might accrue during the appeals process in the event that she still wins.
view more: next ›
I mean, only a misdemeanor offense, and the caller ID thing only cost them $6 million. Sounds to me like this is definitely within budget for a bunch of candidates.