If they are milking it that early, what the hell is going to happen in-game when they want to form the economies?
I'm going to Kickstart some games just so I can repeatedly put #2 or #3 on the list: "No micropurchases". I'll turn "micropurchase-free" into a selling point. DLC will be like... expansion packs, entire new campaigns or some shit. Not like "oh we give you a new weapon and skin suit in the original game".
You picked literally the worst analogy possible. I'll give you two important facts.
First, investment funds don't actually support the things you buy. A company's stock isn't directly tied to the company, and buying into it doesn't put money into the hands of the company. The big Harvard divesting projects to sell out of oil companies is more likely to make the oil companies huge profit in temporary corporate buybacks and stock reissues than anything.
Second, stocks work by buying off other people and selling to other people. What you call "growing your money in the market" amounts to "sucking cash out of stupid people's retirement funds". The stock market is a partial information game, like poker or blackjack. Some players have access to more information--one or three cards in an opponent's hand, the top card on the deck, and so on--and others have just the minimum. In the stock market, information amounts to understanding of the game itself: high-information players (investment bankers) know how to read technical charts, react to news, and overall predict the market; they also often buy into level 2 quotes, and know which purchase orders in which clearing houses are likely to relate to bankers rather than retailers (i.e. they know when other big firms are making a move).
Overall, 401(k) holders are there to funnel in money; day traders are picking at scraps (and paying loan fees for it); and big banks are leaning over everyone's shoulders and making enormous gains by outplaying everyone. If you make any money in the market, you do it by robbing someone stupider than you.
Enjoy your ethical investment.
Of the four pairs of examples offered to show readers what to avoid and how to correct it, a staggering three out of the four are mistaken diagnoses. "At dawn the crowing of a rooster could be heard" is correctly identified as a passive clause, but the other three are all errors:
"There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground" has no sign of the passive in it anywhere.
A great number of dead leaves laid upon the ground.
"It was not long before she was very sorry that she had said what she had" also contains nothing that is even reminiscent of the passive construction.
She was very sorry for what she had said before long.
Before long, she was very sorry for what she had said.
"The reason that he left college was that his health became impaired" is presumably fingered as passive because of "impaired," but that's a mistake. It's an adjective here. "Become" doesn't allow a following passive clause.
He left college because his health had become impaired.
This armchair blogger seems to have large quarrel with small things, and supports this quarrel by deciding that certain respected texts on the topic of grammar are less valid than other respected texts. He even takes a position of arguing that Strunk and White are wrong by pointing to literature, rather than grammar textbooks; I suppose we could cite Edgar Allen Poe as an example of actual, real-life grammar, and claim that English is incorrect unless it is in iambic pentameter.
I encourage you to read The Archmage, a high fantasy series in which commas are sprinkled as a seasoning and the syntax is horrific to track. Well-written enough, good story, good author with terrible syntax. This is a person who needs to learn from Strunk about the serial comma and the semicolon; although your patron would claim the writing is an example of how commas strewn erratically throughout the text obviously shows that such usage is correct.
Your reasoning doesn't hold. The sample size has to be so small as to make the size of random chance distribution bigger than the size of the total possible distribution (i.e. 50% +/-50%, 70% +/- 70%) before you can't draw any conclusion whatsoever. If this weren't true, then even huge samples of millions of data points wouldn't provide enough information to draw any conclusion whatsoever.
There are two general areas in a statistical measurement: the area which shows a likely correlation, and the area which shows a correlation is unlikely. Small samples expand the area of a likely correlation, which is, interestingly, the area that doesn't tell you anything: there may be a difference of 1%, and a sample which provides a margin of error of 1.5% doesn't tell you if these things are the same or different. Large samples do largely suggest that the two things are the same--that the difference is *insignificant*.
In this case, the area that represents "insignificant" is larger than the area that represents "significant". What you learn is that the effect is almost certainly smaller than a certain size, same as when you have incredibly large samples.
I was carrying the argument ad absurdium, because life isn't so fixed that 3-ways are special. I have, in fact, had 4 girls proposition me all at once; I ran the hell away from that. This experience tells me that such things happen to normal people, at random, not necessarily due to them being super awesome in some way. I've also been told by a number of girls that they've had the same response from a bunch of guys when trying to set up a 3-way: a lot of guys are very much unenthused with the prospect of actually having sex with two girls at once, while it's relatively easy for them to find a girl that wants to go in with them.
The world is a strange place.
In practice, it is absolutely doable even for those of us who barely ever get laid. It is, however, awkward.
People often discount how social women are. You might have trouble getting some girl to know to hook up with you; but that same girl, if she gets it in her head to have a 3-way or something, might bring it up for no apparent reason if she's comfortable with you. Suddenly, you're like, "What, wait, what? 3 of your friends? And you? Just me? Wait, no, go back... I don't think I have the stamina for that... I mean that's a lot of multi-tasking."
It happens. It happens more often when you're unattached (your girlfriend is less likely to be hanging out with you plus a friend and move from cheeky girl-talk to raunchy situations since you're around; two girls you just hang out with sometimes might decide to go for it if it crosses their minds first). It's also an amazingly efficient way to break a man's boundaries and send him skittering to the nearest corner.
It's a potential opportunity risk analysis problem: the panel was added to take advantage of the opportunity of greatly increasing your ROI by having a long-term operable probe.
Applying the small costs additional to add tracking or mobility so the probe can recover from landing somewhere unfavorable (there is an entire dark side of the comet) potentially has huge returns in additional scientific data gathered: even absolutely minor, unique data is data you can't get without funneling billions of dollars and years of space travel into a comet excavation mission, so any additional data gathered is billions of dollars cheaper than it otherwise would be.
If the probe turns out like the mars rovers--able to operate for months or years on solar power, possibly occasionally powering down for a few days or weeks to let the batteries recharge for laborious drilling and analysis--then your small additional investment pays enormous dividends. If the probe is simply able to gather more data than predicted, but the data is good and interesting, your small investment is still paying off. If the probe simply fails, the small additional investment costs you little compared to the vast base cost of the mission itself.
This type of analysis tells you when to capitalize on risk opportunities. If you can turn a 10% likelihood of gathering 1% additional ROI into a 95% likelihood by adding 0.001% to the cost, you do that. You should look at all risks and combine as much mitigation as you can to minimize the discrete cost of each and maximize the total opportunity exploitation and total risk mitigation, and then add contingencies (alternate plans) which take effect at possible cost (maybe you can do X and Y, and it's expensive to be able to do BOTH, but you can implement the capability to do EITHER and sacrifice the other for cheap), but only when the threat or opportunity presents itself in earnest.
Well, apparently they planned to launch with the gravity assists and eddies needed, and to intercept the comet's trajectory. That's macro-scale planning: "I'm going to go grocery shopping at Big K-Mart".
They apparently didn't plan back-ups for parts failure (thruster on top), landing anomalies (bounces around), losing track of the probe, or landing in shadow (couldn't make it mobile enough to move to a lighter place). They also didn't consider the cost in delivering a payload, versus the cost in delivering a slightly larger payload--two probes, which is less than two probes and two launchers and two fuel loads. That's micro-scale planning: "I need to carry a second credit card in my wallet in case I run low on cash or the first has a mag strip failure".
It's certainly easier to plan a mission that can get there and do its work if all goes well compared to if things go wrong. Realizing that something can be done and drawing up the plans to point-and-shoot isn't "well thought-out"; risks and contingencies are what make a plan well thought-out.
No she's cute. She was a coworker, so not attractive to me (I have a psychological block in place; my emotions attach to concepts and ideals, not to individual people, and I dislike the concept of polluting a professional relationship), but she had objectively all the surface qualities in behavior, intelligence, and bodily appearance one would find attractive.
It's simply an interesting culture point.
You are saying that all the reasons are not reasonable, and your one reason encompasses all perfectly.
Ask yourself this question: why do they behave that way? Even a health nut would eat meat if it were the only healthy food available--they would know that the carbohydrate-based gruel and the apples they can get in prison are not an adequate fat and protein source, and will make them ill, and so they will need meat because nobody is going to give them a bowl of nuts and dried soy beans. What, then, would drive a person to such obsession, if not fear of health issues?
Similarly, animal rights and the issue of supporting the meat industry go out the window in situations where your change in consumption effect no change in society. For example, a wedding planner may cater the wedding such that the 40 pounds of meat and 25 pounds of vegetables are vegan-friendly: the vegetables may involve beans, salads, and some better-spiced vegetable dishes, but they'll still be 25 pounds of vegetables, and you'll still see 40 pounds of meat at the reception. Obviously, the prison system isn't going to reduce its ordering of meat to deal with the vegan population. In both situations, what ties you to adhere to a hollow principle? The "animal rights" and "support of animal torture" considerations are founded on sand, and the sand has shifted away, and yet you still attempt to stand firm on air.
In these situations, when a person experiences any distress at the consideration of consuming the proffered meat, that distress stems not from a violation of the world around them, but from a violation of themselves. There is no other explanation: it damages their image of who they are, which weakens their sense of social position. You offer only peacock feathers and dismiss the idea that the bird may have flesh beneath them; I offer that a peacock is a bird of flesh and fat, and the feathers are only the dressing within which it enshrouds itself.
Vegans are, ostensibly, an issue of morality. Marriage of 12-year-olds to 30-something men are also an issue of morality. There are many other social behaviors which can be said the same of, and they have all changed over time in similar ways, and have been studied to show similar drivers.
You're fixated on this "Vegans are a mystery box, and the way their minds work is deeply personal and does not follow any laws of science" ideal. Problem is their minds do follow the laws of science, and can be approached analytically.
1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.
