People with past felony convictions have a much harder time finding work and are often denied opportunities such as college admissions and scholarships. The pardon board exists to reward non-recidivism by scrubbing away those past felony convictions.
Speaking as an Atlanta resident, this type of bizzaro policymaking is super on-brand for GA. It's somehow progressive towards the reformed and regressive against the wrongly convicted. One confident step forward and one confused step backward... as usual.
Uh, yeah... I guess? Step 2 is doing a lot of heavy lifting because states can and do extradite internationally. There's a whole federal office which exists for this specific purpose: the OIA. It's hardly a "happily ever after" situation to spend the rest of your life far away from home and constantly looking over your shoulders.
I assume this is a genuine question? This is a state-level indictment from Georgia and Mr. Trump resides in Florida. Georgia cops can't just go on an extrajudicial joyride across state lines and grab him. That would, unfortunately, be abduction.
In cases like these where a state wants to prosecute someone residing in another jurisdiction, the process generally goes like this:
The prosecuting state asks for the indicted person to return within a reasonable timeframe and face their allegations
The prosecuting state waits for this time limit to lapse
The governor of the prosecuting state requests an extradition warrant from the governor of the indicted person's state [^1]
If the indicted person's state does not comply within a reasonable timeframe, then the prosecuting state gets the FBI involved
If the FBI fails to extradite (very unlikely), then the prosecuting state can pass a default judgement and start following alternative courses of action for causing suffering to the guilty
[^1]: Generally speaking, states are federally obligated to honor each other's extradition requests, though asking nicely still remains the first resort. Gov. DeSantis does have an opportunity to grandstand here, but he's much more likely to drag out the process rather than outright defy it -- pissing off the FBI is something which states try to avoid doing
That’s an arbitrary number based off of some black box calculation.
It's not arbitrary. It's the same 55/45 split that creators have gotten from ad-revenue as part of the YouTube Partner Program. I can't seem to find a source to prove it, but IIRC the split percentage has remained completely untouched for a very long time, maybe even since YPP was originally introduced in 2007.
I should also stress that this is a revenue split, not a profit split. Youtube pays all of their operating expenses after creators take their 55% share. It means that the final balance sheet for Youtube works out to something like (fudging): 55% creators, 25% expenses, 20% profit. I won't shill for the shareholders -- the deal could be better, but it's not exactly highway robbery, either.
Well, for one thing it scales more efficiently. If you watch 50 creators, giving Google a 45% cut is more efficient than paying processing fees on $20 split 50 ways. If you want to be truly fair, the logistics become basically impossible without massively increasing your budget. That's why, when most people opt to give directly, they're effectively choosing to reward only their most favorite channels while giving nothing to everyone else.
I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with that, but it's not objectively superior to Premium, which does fairly distribute the creator's cut. Google is able to endlessly split your $11 creator's cut into micro-contributions based on exact watch-time in a way that individuals cannot replicate. Every creator you watch gets their share. Not as much as a direct donation, true, but nobody gets left out and it's considerably more than they'd get from an ad-watching viewer.
Most bots target the game's "Casual" mode, since it's the easiest way to hassle the largest group of people. If you play that mode, you will encounter bots. It sucks that you have to curate your own experience, but you can almost entirely avoid the problem by choosing your own community servers to play on instead.
IMHO: I'd argue that community servers are a "purer" TF2 experience in the first place. So many core game features only make sense in a pro-social "hangout" environment. I'll rattle off a few from the top of my head:
Super long map timers are enjoyable as long as players can leave/join at any time
Unrestricted joining/leaving/teamswitching works as long as autobalance and votescramble exist
votekick/votescramble are great as long as people aren't encouraged to abuse the system to gain an edge
Casual rips almost all of that out in favor of emphasizing the gameplay skeleton which remains. You're no longer showing up to a permanent place with people you can get to know and be silly with. When the round timer ends, Valve may as well be blowing up the server and nervegassing the other 23 players for all it affects you. I posit that TF2's Casual mode isn't merely a "non-competitive mode" -- it's an "anti-social mode". Playing TF2's Casual mode is like... showing up to the amusement park, alone, except all of the restaurants and bathrooms are permanently closed and they lock the exit gates behind you.
FWIW: a lot of that number is genuine. Bots may be prevalent, but their numbers don't generally wildly fluctuate over short time periods. Between June & July the TF2 playercount shot up by 50k and most of that was probably organic.
There’s much more variation in European swords so it’s hard to say ‘the Japanese sword is better than the European one’ because there’s almost definitely a European sword specialized for whatever use case you’re comparing the swords for.
That in and of itself is actually very important; why is there more variation in European swords? Because of armor -- chain mail & shields, specifically. The widespread deployment of these technologies demanded bespoke counter-innovations, such as the estoc (which could pierce chain mail) and the longsword (which could survive hard impacts while still being finessed around shields). These comparatively clumsy arms evolved in direct response to an environment which was overly effective at thwarting the brutal efficiency of the light blade.
True, armor did exist in Japan, though, for most of Japanese history, distribution was largely limited to the Samurai class due to material scarcity. The common footsoldier, instrumental in all war, was generally forced to make do with much less, so simple blades were already extremely effective against them. As a result, there were major innovations in anti-sword arms, such as the naginata and yari, while swords evolved more slowly in response (e.g.: the tachi being replaced by the katana).
Eventually, effective anti-sword armor did become more widespread, but we can only speculate as to what innovation it might have spurred because this era was abruptly cut short through the introduction of the matchlock rifle. Matchlocks were so devastatingly effective against Japanese armor that, by the start of the 17th century, Japan likely had more guns than any other country on Earth. The vast majority of these firearms were manufactured domestically -- as one might imagine, there was no shortage of potential gunsmiths to be recruited from the swordmaking industry. As for gunpowder... where the island was once stingy with iron, saltpeter and sulfur were provided in eager abundance.
People with past felony convictions have a much harder time finding work and are often denied opportunities such as college admissions and scholarships. The pardon board exists to reward non-recidivism by scrubbing away those past felony convictions.
Speaking as an Atlanta resident, this type of bizzaro policymaking is super on-brand for GA. It's somehow progressive towards the reformed and regressive against the wrongly convicted. One confident step forward and one confused step backward... as usual.