An illustration of the negative feedback loop of low skill players leaving the player base
The problem they have is they have a game where winning is fun and losing sucks so they need skill matchmaking so everybody wins enough games.
The games are also impossible to win with even one bad player. If this wasn't the case then with random matchmaking a bad player would get in enough games with good players to still win some. There's not enough random in who wins.
What they should do is have a game where winning is fun and playing the game is also fun.
This can be done with PvE and other ways you can help your team. For example, classic WoW battlegrounds if you were terrible at battles you could take the mines in Alterac Valley, or collect items to power up your base - and battlegrounds were never as fun again. In Team Fortress you can play as medic where you don't need cat reflexes.
I don't think equitable is actually the wrong word here.
What's missing is "random". "When you book an appointment you may be randomly assigned to be seen by a resident instead".
Some people getting the doctor and some the resident is fair if it's random. Of course in reality hardworking, decent people are being seen by the resident and parasites the real doctor.
Yes, that sounds absurd but it's really not when I evaluate my life specifically.
"Yes, that is absurd but it's really not when I evaluate my life superficially".
FTFY.
When you're old and retiring you're going to look back you'll say "man that student loan cancelling seemed so sweet at the time, but same day voting on paper ballots might have actually saved the country".
Even the possibility that Trump could enact just that one thing is worth the minor hardship that you might have by actually having to pay for things yourself.
My new favorite is Snopes debunking "very fine people" seven years after it happened - just so they could 'prebunk' Biden a week before the debate since they knew he'd say it.
It shows they were fine with their audience believing lies and that they were likely tipped off that Biden was on the outs.
Uh, no. This is the "but I can change him!" argument.
What you're saying is true only for a rational actor, but these woke studios are psycho bitches. Their dysfunction is so great they'd need a lobotomy or shock treatment (ie fire Iger and Kennedy).
The problem with doing nothing are Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns".
Like if the north atlantic conveyor shuts down and/or methane calthrates are released then we're boned. These may happen quickly and irreversibly, we don't know.
We can't quantify the risk for doing nothing so we should probably avoid it if there are low-risk alternatives.
There's research showing that increasing CO2 ppm higher than 300-400 ppm range (some disagreement) doesn't increase heat retaining at all; atmosphere is already saturated for CO2 retaining heat.
If that's right there's two solutions: either destroy the world economy including overthrowing China CCP causing massive hardship and suffering worldwide, or geoengineering.
Yeah I'm gonna say geoengineering. Or do nothing and wait for technology to solve it for us.
Also the black areas are where most of the (old-school) cheating happens.
In Wayne county over half the polls had a different number of votes and voters. Fulton county is where they got caught red handed on video and nobody in Justice or democrat party cared.
They're going to vote for Kamala whether they want to or not.
Accomplishes two things.
First, since the Secret Service isn't doing their job ("always a possibility") this lays down an assured-destruction doctrine. This stops Iran from trying it even though it's as easy for them as taking candy from baby.
Second the clandestine state wants to kill Trump then blame Iran so they can attack them - two birds with one stone - but like you say they don't want to risk all-out war because glassing the desert would big time disrupt their plans.
I just tuned in and they asked the Colonel Christopher Paris "how many shots did the guy fire?" and the he said "8 shell casings were recovered".
Just the facts. Best answer he could give since he doesn't know if the guy shot them all or if there was a second shooter or however they got there.
Put this guy in charge. I don't know anything else about him but I already have a thousand times more confidence in him than Cheatle.
Jim Jordan did ask the question and repeated it several times after her refusal to answer, but you're kind of right.
Problem is he's only doing it so the audience sees him yelling at her. He could have maneuvered her to admit there was a number, she'd have to dodge by saying she didn't know it, and then "will you commit your staff to providing us with the number of denials for more protection".
Then you eventually get the answer or you add that in the reason to impeach; failure to provide information to Congress in a timely manner, which is way stronger than just 'we don't like you'.
You said you could prove it, now you say you can't prove it - but that's ok because you don't have to!
Oh they have to prove it, which they've done, but that proof isn't sufficient because you've proven they're wrong, but you can't share your proof with anybody else.
Your literally insane as in dysfunctional thought process. You could also believe in a flat Earth with that same reasoning. "All they have is satellite images supposedly showing a planet, that's not proof". This is exactly your rationale and it's insane.
It's already proven. The info is there. You just have to figure it out.
If it's proven you could start by... proving it, what you believe.
Instead you've just made claims, which are just opinions. "They just ran out of resources, don't cha know!" Well prove it then.
There's plenty of film evidence that some terrible stuff happened that could not have been faked at the time.
Covid being 'entirely a hoax' is only sensible in the broadest melodramatic sense of being overblown.
The end.
There's a "why?", "to what extent", and "and then" missing in your story. That's how you know your story is inadequate.
She's an absolute cipher.
She knows nothing and only cares about herself and her job, not the job. The secret service is supposed to take a bullet for the President, whether it's a physical bullet or a deadly serious question.
Here's how the Jim Jordan exchange should have gone:
Jim: "How many times did the Secret Service deny the Trump campaigns requests for extra protection?"
Cheatle: "To the best of my knowledge 48 times" and then go into how they thought it was adequate, it was a mistake, they've given increased resources to Trump. Except they didn't think it was adequate, it wasn't a mistake, and they didn't increase resources.
Instead this is how it went:
Cheatle: "A denial of a request does not equal a vulnerability" and more refusing to answer.
Absolutely disgusting.
By reports they mean anonymous surveys that have a bunch of questions to try to control for hesitancy and definition.
Like it'll ask different variations like how many times you've been slapped, bruised, or whatever.
They sometimes actually try to not make social 'science' a complete joke.
government and police can't lie to you. Getting a confession by lying is an end-run around your right not to incriminate yourself.
no plea bargains. Plea bargains cause the government to overcharge to raise the risk of trial too high, taking away your right to due process.
government pays your defense as much as they pay their prosecution, if convicted they take this amount from your assets. Prevents lawfare where cases are won by bankrupting the defendant.
you can lie to police unless under oath (under oath you can remain silent even selectively). The reason we have the oath is because it's normal and expected for people to lie to protect themselves.