Note that "could afford" means the rent is 30% or less of their income. This is a pretty reasonable target, but not inviolable, especially when housing is out of whack with the rest of costs.

I don't think it's fair to call Slay the Spire (StS) a clone. While Card Quest introduced a lot of the key elements years earlier, StS adds enough innovation that it feels like a totally different game. Definitely would be more fair to say StS popularized a lot of the mechanics rather than invented/pioneered them though.

Also a video at this link. The man moves to stay in front of the tank and even climbs on top of it. Eventually some folks on foot come and guide/force him out of the way.

That would involve unknown magnitudes of change

So to most effectively address climate change we need individuals to change their behavior. So we can just tell everyone to do that, and we are all set, right? Clearly not. We need to:

Tax Carbon

Taxing "carbon" (really all GHG emissions) creates incentives for individuals and companies to use less, making trade-offs and choosing less carbon-intensive products. It moves the threshold for switching over to cleaner and more efficient technologies. People who refuse to acknowledge climate change will still change their behavior for personal benefit. People who want to make the world better will have more options and less reliance on company marketing/greenwashing.

Read what 28 Nobel Laureates and thousands of other economists have to say: https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/

As mentioned on that page, the best use of this tax is to give it back to everyone equally. Those who pollute less than average come out ahead. Those who pollute more pay for it in (indirect) taxes.

This is wrong on top of wrong. First off, it's 57 entities (including "Former Soviet Union") producing 80% of the emissions tracked by the database -- which covers "88% of total fossil fuel and cement emissions," and totals 251G tonnes of CO2 equivalent gasses (CO2e) from 2016 through 2012 [1]. So with that we have 200Gt making up 70% of the global total over that 7 year period.

But fossil fuels and cement emissions are not the only source of greenhouse gasses. Human-caused global emissions are roughly 53GtCO2e annually during that time [2], for a total of 370Gt across all sources. So 200Gt is about 54% of that.

Most importantly though, this is a ridiculous measure in the first place. Who cares how many people are responsible for digging up the fuels that people are directly burning themselves in their homes and cars? If every oil well had its own company, how would that improve emissions? Nearly half of emissions are from individuals, and much of the rest is directly driven by consumer demand (e.g. power companies burning coal and gas).

Sources

• [1] https://influencemap.org/briefing/The-Carbon-Majors-Database-26913#briefing_section_bullet-26926
• [2] Our World in Data

Oh, apparently Schur directed the sweet Eschaton music video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJpfK7l404I

According to Times of Israel, the jets are F-15IA (Israeli-variant F-15EX), which are quite capable of carrying over a dozen bombs equipped with the JDAMs also being provided.

Pretty sure Paul is using "fragrant offering" metaphorically there. He uses the same phrases to describe Christ in Ephesians 5, and both call back to burnt offerings giving a "pleasing aroma" in the OT. The shift from plural "gifts" to singular "sacrifice" further supports this interpretation.

The latest (2022) “median net compensation” from SSA is $40,847.18

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html

In John her name is given as Mary.

It's worth pointing out the context is days before Jesus' death. It's also part of hitting the clueless disciples over the head with the message He's dying soon.

With respect to the poor, I like the phrasing in Mark: "You always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them" (bold mine). Jesus did not criticize them for failing to annoint Him, but for harassing the woman, for nitpicking her good deed.

It's a profoundly fitting verse in relationship to this discussion. A group of people try to tell as many people as possible that Jesus loves -- and Christians are called to serve -- all people: folks of every age and race and creed including those the right is stoking hate for: muslims, LGBTQ+, those who've had abortions, everyone. Instead of supporting this push-back against hate, cynics have decided that this money was the missing piece of the several billion dollars needed annually to address world hunger.

This is known as the Chino's Paradox

fyi, chemo for pets is much milder than for humans

I doubt such information would be public, but given that Trump publically invited Russia to interfere in the campaign, I'd certainly consider it plausible he also did so in private. Seems like a heck of stretch to go from that to "liar" and "corrupt".

Are you talking about the Russia collusion thing where his campaign staff were found guilty of a bunch of felonies and he wasn't charged because a "president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office"? Where Mueller basically said: I'm not allowed to say he's guilty, but I can tell you he's not not guilty. That one?

You have neglected to note that the original comment violates rule 6 against celebrating death.

At the risk of stating the well-known, Khan's line references Moby Dick:

He tasks me; he heaps me; I see in him outrageous strength, with an inscrutable malice sinewing it.

and:

Aye, aye! and I'll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames before I give him up.

If there isn’t a clear “yes, let’s do it at this time” it’s always a no.

This is also worth understanding in case someone asks you out. If they invite you to some undesirable activity (e.g. a sport you are not interested in) with just the two of you, then declining will be taken as a more general lack of romantic interest. (Disclaimer: asking you to an activity alone is not 100% sign of romantic interest).

This will often be followed by a significant change in behavior towards you (e.g. less joking / flirting). This is not them being angry or trying to get back at you. They are trying to respect your lack of romantic interest, and possibly handling their own emotions of rejection, disappointment, and such. If you do lack romantic interest, this is mostly unavoidable; people will always be sad when the person they like doesn't like them back.

If you do have romantic interest, then try to suggest alternative activities and be extremely blunt that you do want to date them. Make sure you have a concrete day you will do something together, even if you don't figure out exactly what it is. If you can't even settle on a day, set a date on when you'll talk next about a date.

This dilemma is why flirting is so complicated. Basically two people are trying to slowly build confidence that they like each other, while maintaining total deniability about it. I know this sounds challenging, but it's much harder in practice.

For this reason, Azzu's suggestions are absolutely correct.

Expanding on "be graceful when rejected" -- make sure you are prepared for a "no" answer. One small help here is an alternative activity planned for yourself, so that you have something to look forward to either way.