The worst aspect of this game is the tedious inventory management and awful UI. You only get 10 storage crates which each only hold 5 different items and they all look identical so you have to run around trying to find the right one to add it to the right stack. There's not enough space to be able to store most items especially if you need intermediate items for crafting, even if you limit yourself to storing only one stack of one type of item. You end up using all the exocraft just for storage and never use most of them besides only for storage. Progression is largely centered around buying extra storage slots for your exoskeleton which ends up allowing you to carry more stuff on your body than you can on a large vehicle or in one of these giant storage crates that barely hold anything. The item icons are also unnecessarily huge in them and there isn't an easy or efficient way of interacting with them. The big storage cubes allow you to access the inventory from anywhere so that somehow justifies the very limited space, but there is no option for building a container that you can only access locally from inside a base other than building portable refiners to abuse as storage, which hold hardly anything and sometimes despawn randomly. So you end up building like 50 refiners in a base for storage and you constantly run around trying to remember what each one holds so you can go store something in an existing stack to save space.
For Berkshire in particular most of this cash is part of the float for their insurance business which they need to have on hand and available to pay out for potential claims and they will only ever keep that part of the float in cash equivalents. Still they have a large amount of cash beyond what they need for the float which they attribute to lack of opportunities to invest in given their immense size and investing style. They also want to be able to be in a strong position in a downturn or crisis situation. Hoarding all that excess cash still presents a major opportunity cost for them, although now not as much as before with higher interest rates.
Because it has low solubility it will be less toxic compared to a more soluble form of lead, but it is still highly toxic and there is no safe dose. It has been implicated in numerous documented cases of lead poisoning from adulterated turmeric and you wouldn't want to be consuming it.
A major, important difference between the two is that a median HN user can read the Wikipedia page on STAR voting and come away not fully understanding it and have further questions (do score difference magnitudes matter in the runoff? Or only which is higher?).
Meanwhile approval voting is exhaustively explained by "vote for as many candidates as you like. Candidate with the most votes wins."
A "more optimal" voting system doesn't exist in a vacuum, public understanding and trust make a voting system more optimal. Just not more mathematically optimal.
cardinal (rated) voting methods are better than ordinal (ranked). so score voting, approval voting, and star voting are all good.
approval voting is just score voting on a 0-1 binary scale. star voting is score voting on a 0-5 scale, followed by an "instant runoff" between the top two highest rated candidates.
> public understanding and trust make a voting system more optimal.
star voting: score the candidates from 0 - 5 and the winner is the majority favorite between the two highest rated overall.
there's no risk with public understanding here. i've worked on this subject since 2006, and conducted exit polls with score voting ballots within months of getting into this issue. people understand it just fine. it's radically simpler than ranking.
It would require voting for the other party. The big issue is the parties being willing to back aging candidates. But of course, party leaders are just as old -- so they see no problem.
There's more than two parties. Nobody is forcing you to vote for one of them. Parties are also an anti-pattern. Again we need a better system than first past the post that naturally biases towards a two party system.
Party primaries devolve into 'the devil you know vs the devil you dont' and the Devil You Know usually has a boatload of cash to spend on the campaign that the Devil You Dont doesn't have. You are right of course, the solution lies in eliminating the party system and implementing a ranked voting system of some kind.
Due to practicality and congressional gridlock, this has to happen state by state, and in many states the 'easiest' method is some sort of ballot initiative. I encourage anyone who reads this to look up the process in their state (https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_ballot_measures_by_state) and at least try to get a signature out to one so they show up on the ballot.
All other things being equal it is in their best interest to re-elect the incumbent. Seniority and connections figure into what posts you get and what influence you have. McConnell's and Feinstein's constituents have an outsized influence on the proceedings. Why would Kentuckians cede control of the Senate in favor of a politician, no matter how skilled, who had zero seniority?
I'm not especially in favor of short term limits, since there is a benefit to politicians with experience. But I'd definitely consider options that better balance their reasonable desire to elect experienced and influential candidates with the very heavy hand that experience puts on everybody else.
And voting for the party is sensible. Most important votes happen along party lines. Including the most important, for Speaker and Majority Leader, who set the agenda.
Most other votes will be largely sublimated to the party priorities. The individuals will determine the specific contents of what they're voting on, but in general the person from the other party is going to vote against the things you're most interested in. You may watch your party vote on things that aren't your favorite, but it's unlikely they'll be repugnant to you. That's how they got to be your allies.
If you want to get more involved than that, you show up for the primaries. That's a multi-way contest to find the person who best represents you and your allies. That's where the party priorities get set. People who vote only in the general election are missing out on the real work of politics.
I keep JS disabled by default and only enable it in certain situations.
If your site doesn't work without JS and I try to view it I am probably just going to leave.
