An impeachment conviction results in removal from office. The previous impeachment proceedings did not result in a conviction.

(Edit for additional information: While an impeachment uses terms like “trial” and “conviction” it is not a judicial proceeding. It is entirely a legislative proceeding which is formatted to resemble a judicial one, but is not bound to judicial procedure and it also can not produce a criminal conviction or sentence.)

Scary numbers.

I bet the creator of this lazy asset flip is thrilled about this publicity.

Edit: for some reason replies think I’m being sarcastic.

You probably won’t understand entirely what is happening in the setting, but it’s not like you fully understood what was happening for most of Shadow Of Chernobyl.

You play as a brand new character with no relation to the past games in STALKER 2.

If you can pick up on implications and make informed guesses you can understand the world well enough. STALKER games have always succeeded with atmosphere and vibes rather than tight plot.

to get Stalker 2 into a decent place performance wise across PC and Xbox Series X and S

Consoles, and bugs stemming from optimizing for consoles.

Removing the bugs from STALKER? Very inauthentic.

This is a Senator firing an opening salvo with a vague threat of government action.

Warner also warned, somewhat ominously, that if Valve does not adopt industry-standard moderation practices—whatever that means—it will “face more intense scrutiny from the federal government for its complicity in allowing hate groups to congregate and engage in activities that undoubtedly puts Americans at risk.”

Nothing has been done with government force, yet. Maybe he will drop it, maybe he won’t, but at the moment I’m responding to a Senator floating the idea of using government power to wade into Steam forums.

I don’t think anything good can come of the government deciding to crack down on Steam moderation in order to “save the children”.

The current situation of Steam having a toxic forum community in places is better than whatever happens with “scrutiny”.

If I may put on a tinfoil hat for a moment, this recent push to get Steam labeled as an extremist den that needs to be dealt with feels like yet another attack originating from competitors.

Wow this push against Valve kind of popped up quickly and suddenly didn’t it?

I’m only but one person.

It gets me thinking. Tech literate people are the types to install blockers, and would be the same type of people both motivated and knowledgeable about how to switch browsers. On the line of thinking it seems like it is just going to drive them away from Chrome. Tech illiterate people remain unaffected since they are getting ads anyway.

But then on the other hand, if someone is tech literate then why are they even still using Chrome? Does such a person value whatever advantage Chrome theoretically provides over their ad-blocking?

and the whole hooters/twin peaks concept

I haven’t thought about Hooters in years. It always did seem like a dated concept from the 1980s that was somehow still clinging to life in the 90s. It’s still in business, so obviously somebody must be going to them, but I don’t know if I’d call it normal for most Americans.

Anecdotally this is also my experience. I grew up with shoes off in the house, but even up to the early 00’s it seemed to be a cultural outlier in the US.

These days I think the majority of people who I go over to visit have a shoes off rule. Seems like the split is between the older half of millennials and up shoes on, and younger half and down shoes off for the most part.

If a business has a sign posted stating “no guns allowed,” you can still legally carry your weapon in that business.

I’m sure that’s the practicality, but I am skeptical of the legality of a CCW permit trumping the rights of the property owner.

It sounds more like breaking the law and just not getting caught. Do you have any links to CCW permit overriding property owner rights?

#8: Police

State police enforce state level laws, and Federal agencies enforce federal laws.

The whole semi-autonomous thing. If a state and the Feds both have their own laws against something they could each try to arrest somebody, but there could also be a situation where one might not have a law while the other one does. For example , weed is still illegal under Federal law. The Federal government has mostly chosen not to enforce these laws, but it could. Many states have legalized weed to varying degrees.

So there could be a situation where somebody is smoking weed in a state that has legalized it. The state police have no power to arrest that person, but the Feds do.

I’m sure this has all made it more confusing.

In the US with all the variety there are places like that, but then places where you seemingly can’t find alcohol to buy and take home anywhere.

There’s differences between how wine & beer, and hard liquor are treated. I’d say the “average” experience is beer in any corner shop or gas station, beer and wine in a grocery store, and hard liquor in specific liquor stores.

Alcohol sales vary hugely between states. In some states, you can get hard liquor at Wal-Mart while in others you can only get it at state run stores.

The rules about licensing mean some areas gas stations usually don’t even sell beer, while in other places they have giant walk in beer freezers.

Some states or counties have dry laws where they don’t sell alcohol on Sundays, or maybe no hard alcohol, or maybe you have to wait until noon to be able to buy it.

It’s all over the place.

As for the Wal-Mart machineguns, I think you’ve gotten enough replies on that detail, but again gun sales are something with huge variety. Some states have put restrictions in place where a Wal-Mart theoretically could still sell guns but doesn’t because of the hassle, and gun stores end up being few and far between, while other places basically just have the Federal minimum in place.

And if he has a permit but is printing then it can also land him with some penalties.

I can’t find anything in a quick search the specifies printing as being illegal. In fact, a quick search brings up the opposite, that printing is not a legal definition and the discussion around it by laypersons often becomes muddled with confusion between printing and brandishing.

States will vary, but did you have a particular one in mind regarding the specifics of printing? Some of the search results I get mention some anti-printing laws but none I find get more specific than that.