There's a problem which he misses in this which appears in this game and almost everywhere: Games that don't have any useful words on the board, presumably because the game is to be sold in multiple countries. For instance, the question about what the crystal icons mean could have been resolved if the game had had words like "per round" or "additional" on them.
I think it's equally the reduction of personal letters. Businesses haven't used stamps for decades, so I receive perhaps two letters per year with a stamp.
A few years ago someone asked for my address (!) and then sent a wedding invitation, but more recently there's been the same formality applied to asking for my email address to send a wedding invitation.
D&D isn't American history. It's fantasy fiction. The "American History"-like elements come from fantasy fiction, where someone like Conan could become a king and there are unexplored areas full of hostiles all over the place.
It's easy to say that forgetting is an ethical act if you're the perpetrator of things you want people to forget. Reading this article, it seems she once got her jollies making the world a worse place for her political enemies.
She seems to sincerely think that Twitter is bad, but it's not bad because of what she did with it, it's bad because well, you don't always win fights on it and when you attack someone you can get in trouble too and that's really messy and she doesn't want to deal with that. If she didn't want to deal with it, she didn't have to participate; the kind of political activism described in this article is not how most people use Twitter.
I can understand wanting people to forget if you said one or two things years ago and people took them out of context. Or even if you did one misdeed, but it was years ago. This is not, according to her article, why she wants people to forget.
Yeah, it sounds like she only regrets the swings she took that didn't land. I am not surprised, she was so often busy cranking the wheels of the Euphemism Treadmill. Anything, I suppose, to distract one from the burden of self-awareness.
If you're just looking to survive and pay bills, yeah, take anything.
I prefer to also focus on not doing soul destroying work, working with good collaborators, and earning enough to enjoy the rest of my waking hours. That narrows the employment pool down a lot.
If you're skilled enough and have options and a network, it can even be more prudent to sit out the employment market and contract for a while until a good role comes along.
>If a lease has value to me remaining undeveloped, and it has value to them being developed, then shouldn't we be able to compete to see how much the market values those priorities?
No, because the actual amount the lessee is paying is the $19/acre, plus the taxes on the oil they extract. The fact that the $19 is a separate transaction is just an accounting convenience.
The state could say "place bids of price per acre plus taxes. Highest bidder wins. We'll refund taxes up to the amount you paid in the bid." It would be inconvenient for multiple reasons, but it would average to the same thing, and it would stop the conservationists cold. The fact that the state doesn't do it that way and so the conservationists can pay the price per acre by itself is just a loophole.
The state is basically selling the oil in the land on consignment. The state sells the oil rights, the group who buys the oil rights sells the oil, and they send a part of the profit back to the state (there's at least taxes, and maybe fees or royalties--I don't know the financial details of the oil industry).
If someone "buys the oil rights" and doesn't sell any oil, they're cheating the state.
You're reaching. Well, you're stretching like crazy, but not actually reaching anything.
Hypothetical taxes on unrealized (and possibly zero) profits are not in any way part of the transaction, and it's just bizarre to think of them that way.
There's no guarantee of royalties over and above the lease. You just dreamed that up to support your weird asspulled idea that there's some kind of fraud here. If they wanted guaranteed royalties, they could have written that in.
Furthermore, the state even had the advantage of writing the contract. If the state wants a condition on a lease, the state is perfectly capable of putting it in there (as it is now doing).
A sophisticated party (which a state is supposed to be), with experience in the business, made a public offer. Somebody took that offer with no modification, with every intention of performing on the contract, and with absolutely no attempt at falsification or even concealment of anything at all. The idea that that's somehow "fraud" is insane. Not only is it not legally fraud, but it's not colloquially fraud, either. It's nothing like fraud.
Which is probably why nobody actually involved was crazy enough to suggest that it was fraud.
If you make a deal you discover you don't like, that doesn't make it fraud.
[Edited to fix a false statement about royalties... I pasted in the wrong draft].
> the group who buys the oil rights sells the oil, and they send a part of the profit back to the state
Source? (Not challenging you.)
> If someone "buys the oil rights" and doesn't sell any oil, they're cheating the state
I’d argue a better solution than thinning the buyer pool is setting a high minimum rebate, possibly one that only kicks in if the plot isn’t exploited.
Would also note that Wyoming’s revenue is from sales tax, mining tax and ticketing tourists. (Property tax is mostly minerals [1].)
Shifts the risk that the land is not very productive onto the bidder, which I suspect is undesirable (except to the extent it incentivizes the bidder making a sincere effort).
