It can tell 'cause of the way it is.
It can tell 'cause of the way it is.
Yeah, we did stuff like that too. Then people started breaking contracts, and things got ugly.
Downvoted because of the nightmare thumbnail.
Some majors are straight-up pyramid schemes. If the only thing you can do with a major is to teach it to others, it’s a pyramid scheme.
It’s less than that. Closer to a few thousand, IIRC.
Settlers can be played pretty competitively–stuff like building a settlement in a “bad” position just to mess up someone working to build next to that spot, stuff like that.
The friction in Monopoly mainly comes down to our table rules, specifically that you can make any deal verbally you want (though there’s no guarantee the other party will follow through).
Monopoly and Settlers. Both very cutthroat at family gatherings.
Monopoly. My oldest two siblings are absolutely cutthroat when playing it.
I guess in this case the /s is for satire.
Ah, that would definitely make a difference. A debit transaction uses some form of “password” like a PIN or the data embedded in a card chip. A credit transaction technically only relies on easily available data and sometimes a signature, much more common for fraud (it’s pretty easy to read and replicate the data from a magnetic strip–one of my classmates did a project to read magnetic strips, and they had to stop letting people swipe their own cards on it because it popped up tons of confidential data).
My CU’s website definitely looks like it’s from the early naughts, but they at least kept things up to date and security practices seemed legit, and I don’t think I ever tripped the fraud detector. I guess everyone’s mileage will vary a bit.
Yeah I’m on board, I was attempting some mild satire.
Yeah, I was being mildly satirical. Insulting any people group seems like it should be a losing move. I wish it were.
They can’t vote, so why would they care? Easy targets, no apparent consequences.
Edit: /s
I think the question “do the ends justify the means” is meant to invoke exactly what you’re describing. What you call the “desired end state” is what the question means by “the end.” The question is framing exactly what you’re saying: the path of reaching a desired outcome includes everything it takes to get there–is it still a desirable end? Is the entire path justified, given the intermediate consequences?
I’m guessing it’s worded this way because we apply this question/principle to situations where the “end” is altruistic but the “means” are not, and it’s specifically asked because people want to separate the two to ignore the moral/ethical implications of the means. The entire point of the question/principle is that the end cannot be separated from the means with regard to whether it is ethical.
They’re common in Canada as well. In my experience, they’re much better than larger banks for things like fees and interest rates.
Historically the main advantage of a larger bank was having banks and ATMs everywhere, but lots of CUs have formed mutual agreements for ATM access, and internet banking being ubiquitous has rendered any advantage the big banks have had moot (in my opinion, at least).
What does he do with them when he catches one?
Ending a game of Munchkin is almost impossible to do without upsetting the rest of the players. If you felt bad, that’s fair, but what you described is very much in the spirit of the game.
That’s totally on them for ignoring you. Sounds like getting knocked down a peg might have been good for that guy.
Related, Settlers is one of the two games that are banned at my family gatherings.
Spicy seasons in your area