The issue is how the constitution lays out the choosing of a president. Pence had to certify the results, if he had refused to do so for long enough, then that session of Congress may have ended without choosing a president.

At that point, the Constitution prescribes there is a contingent election in the House, where every state delegation to Congress gets 1 vote. There are more red states than blue states -> Trump wins.

That is a screenshot from Victoria 2

Yes, you. And me. And probably most of the people reading this, who live in the US or another Western country

Not quite. 1% of global population is ~80 million people. There are about a billion people in the highly developed nations (US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and some minor others). So the top 8% of the golden billion, if we assume all in the US, the top ~25% of the country.

You are definitely better of snacking on peanuts than, say, Doritos. It's not that they are a bad food, they just don't have a great macro balance if they are the major component of a diet. From this unvetted comparison they don't seem to be too bad compared to other nuts.

If someone really wanted to get most of their calories from peanuts, they would probably want to supplement with something like pea protein powder and some high-fiber greens (or even beans). This would allow for keeping carbs relatively low while having a more even balance between fat and protein intake. Not quite keto, but not the typical high-carb western diet.

I agree, but at least nuts are high in unsaturated fats, which have some rather solid clinical backing as being healthy. Obviously still energy-dense, and if nuts are used a primary protein source it will likely be difficult to stay within a restricted caloric budget.

E.g. if you want to follow the government recommendation and have 20% of your calories come from protein, peanuts will fall short as only 18% of their calories are sourced from protein (79% from fat). 349 grams of peanuts (about 3/4 of a pound) has 2000 calories and 91 grams of protein - with 175 grams of fat.

The argument the person above you is making is that they also profit off people who never file claims in the first place. In fact those people are more profitable since they do not consume labor to process claims.

The Byzantine system of rules and coverage exemptions exists to disincentive people from filing claims just as it exists to give leeway to deny them.

Of course the overall point that paid claims must be less than premiums charged (and investment income) is correct.

Bro delete this I just shi myself omw to work

An inherent flaw in transformer architecture (what all LLMs use under the hood) is the quadratic memory cost to context. The model needs 4 times as much memory to remember its last 1000 output tokens as it needed to remember the last 500. When coding anything complex, the amount of code one has to consider quickly grows beyond these limits. At least, if you want it to work.

This is a fundamental flaw with transformer - based LLMs, an inherent limit on the complexity of task they can 'understand'. It isn't feasible to just keep throwing memory at the problem, a fundamental change in the underlying model structure is required. This is a subject of intense research, but nothing has emerged yet.

Transformers themselves were old hat and well studied long before these models broke into the mainstream with DallE and ChatGPT.

The world bank isn't involved so much in printing money - that's central banks like the US Federal Reserve or European Central Bank.

They do love to force developing nations to adopt US-style capitalism by withholding loans for needed development projects. They also focus far too much on increasing GDP at all costs and do not give really any weight to increasing living standards or reducing inequality. Basically, think loans to institute Reaganomics and you won't be too far off.

The loans pay for large capital projects (power plants, large-scale irrigation, etc) that are built by the state and then mandated to he handed over to private entities that then charge rents and extract wealth. Not every loan and program is bad, but there's plenty to give pause when they are involved in a project.

Beyond making them look horrible, they were marching towards a court ruling against the forced arbitration clause.

Once there is a precedent for the clause being unenforceable, the clause ceases to be a deterrent to legal action - every claim would be litigated at the very least to settle the question of whether arbitration is required in a specific case.

DnD good and evil are distinct from common usage of the terms; they are cosmic forces, objective truths. Each action reverberates through the higher and lower planes and tilts the scales towards victory for one side or another in their eternal struggle. This lore doesn't leave a ton of room to change the alignment of entire races (and that is by design, structure makes it easier for people to get in to the setting).

But this is just in the established settings, any DM is free to homebrew any setting and justification they like.

Note that I am not trying to defend this as the height of storytelling, it isn't. It is a consequence of how the setting is justified - with deities being active participants, having specific rules for granting and revoking powers, and the physical presence of higher and lower planes embodying perfect conceptions of 'good', 'evil', order, chaos, etc. All of this can be changed, and again any DM is free to change it, but the 'deep lore' of the established settings over the past 40 years is drenched in this stuff.

One way to consider it is simply - the Drow aren't evil because they are Drow. The Drow are evil because their culture promotes actions that align with the literal true definition of evil that is present in the setting. Evil doesn't mean bad, it is just a label aligning with some physical rule of the universe. Just like the positive charge of a proton and negative charge of an electron are labels for physical rules of our own universe. Positive isn't any better than negative, but they are inherently distinct.

Cats convert CO to CO2, and NOx to N2 (mostly irrelevant for this conversation). In closed space, the exhaust is still deadly, but you are correct in that CO would cause quicker death than CO2 displacing the oxygen.

Relatively low concentrations of CO will cause severe drops in red blood cell's ability to transport oxygen, then follows unconsciousness and death. CO2 in contrast would require higher concentrations to be effective, as it would only reduce the efficiency of gas transfer in the lungs and lead to slow and painful decreasing blood pH - and a strong panic reflex and the 'I can't breathe' feeling - until eventual unconsciousness and death.