Lurker > WastelandCowboy

Why would my weapon break?

I have max repair and Jury Rigging to keep my weapons and armor in top condition.

I also keep a Laser RCW on me as a backup in case my followers get knocked unconscious and Im too close to use the YCS.

Im very well equipped to deal with any situation where the game doesnt artificially increase difficulty by stripping me of all my resources.

Thats like... the WHOLE POINT OF AN RPG.

What they did was they tried way too hard to go for the survival horror feel for the DLC and completely ruined the spirit of the game

Dead Money isn't super great and you need certain builds or know what you're doing to get through it.

But the other DLCs for NV are great what are you on about?

Dead Money is just stupid because the game basically decides to shit on all of your progression youve made with your build and say

"Hey, you've been building towards energy weapons and sniping from long distance this whole time? Enjoy fighting 2, 3 mobs at a time that cripple you with every strike with a fucking 34 dps Tire Iron trolololololol"

Fuck you Fallout and your shitty DLCs. I couldnt wait to leave the desert one with the Indians either but this one is even more tedious and toxic...

I assume you are referring to Jimmy from Downton Abbey

Five Guys and In N Out are pretty standard for these kinds of discussions. At least as far as 'fast food' burgers go.

I also like Smashburger.

no, because puberty has been over for me for a long time

Maybe more white and geeky.

If you like it that much, I can't imagine the movie costs more than 10-15 dollars

I like the variety and subreddits, but hate the design.

Also, the upvote/downvote system is annoying, which led to circlejerking and constant reposts just to farm karma.

Honestly, I really only come to GameFAQs just to post on PotD. I hardly ever use the walkthroughs or guides.

WastelandCowboy posted...

Jen0125 posted...

totally different show

This.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashville_(2012_TV_series)

Link doesn't work. I told you the Mandela Effect is a thing that exists.

totally different show

Zeus posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

since our work has a "No Dating Coworkers" policy,

Overlooking that most companies aren't big enough to have a good dating pool, what kind of a business has a silly rule like that in place? (And I'm curious if it's even enforceable under law, since government almost always sides against business in any matter.)

yeah most businesses have a "please disclose coworker dating" policy. seems weird to ban it.

Apparently ours does. I think. I'm pretty sure I saw that in the manual when I read it two and a half years ago.

If it doesn't, cool. Still won't change my friendship with her. We've both established that we see each other as just good friends.

And the question Is...Why did he left her.?

WastelandCowboy posted...

since our work has a "No Dating Coworkers" policy,

Overlooking that most companies aren't big enough to have a good dating pool, what kind of a business has a silly rule like that in place? (And I'm curious if it's even enforceable under law, since government almost always sides against business in any matter.)

im sure someone somewhere gets off to rubbing money on their genitals before they spend it

This coming from the guy who spent years talking about his expensive clothes and food.

WastelandCowboy posted...

mistakenly overbooked

they don't mistakenly overbook. they do it on purpose.

WastelandCowboy posted...

The problem is that one passenger couldn't sacrifice his seat to get everyone else going.

The problem is that United Airlines wrongly chose to assault David Dao instead of delay the plane until someone cooperated. Granted, United Airlines fucked up by assuming there'd be "no-show" passengers, but there was a simple solution and it's ridiculously simple. "Delay the flight until someone budges." They cannot leave until all staff is accounted for and seated.

No, the problem is that United oversold their flight. Full stop. If you fuck up and I refuse to inconvenience myself to help cover for you, that's not me causing a problem, it's still YOUR problem that YOU created.

Sure, United could have refused to leave until four people disembarked. That might have worked. Or they could have increased the compensation until someone bit. Or they could have arranged accommodation for their staff on a different airline. Or they could have left without the staff which, yes, might have caused a different United flight to get delayed or cancelled.

And yes, all of these - to varying extents - would have cost United money and prestige. But I have zero pity for them. They caused the incident by overselling the flight; by all rights it is they - not their customers - who should eat the consequences. If they don't like it, maybe they'll learn not to oversell flights in the future.

(a) Except as specified in § 121.393 and § 121.394, each certificate holder must provide at least the following flight attendants on board each passenger-carrying airplane when passengers are on board:

(1) For airplanes having a maximum payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds and having a seating capacity of more than 9 but less than 51 passengers - one flight attendant.

(2) For airplanes having a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less and having a seating capacity of more than 19 but less than 51 passengers - one flight attendant.

(3) For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 50 but less than 101 passengers - two flight attendants.

(4) For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 100 passengers - two flight attendants plus one additional flight attendant for each unit (or part of a unit) of 50 passenger seats above a seating capacity of 100 passengers.

WastelandCowboy posted...

However, what I did say is that there is a procedure for events like this where the airline has mistakenly overbooked and not allowed space for their employees.

lmao dude what? overbooking is a matter of course for airlines, that's the fuckin' problem

I think the fact that the seats were needed for employees may have messed with their heads. See, if the employees can't get on their flight, then they will likely miss the next flight, thus creating an entire plane's worth of delayed passengers, as opposed to just four people. Maybe it caused them to act irrationally because they thought it was a bigger deal than it actually was.

They still fucked up.

WastelandCowboy posted...

In this situation and many others, had David Dao cooperated, he would be like the others who volunteer their seats and are often compensated with a flight to their destination, mileage points, etc. In this situation, yes, David Dao is at fault for not cooperating with the airline employees and law enforcement. Yes, it would've sucked to miss this flight, but instead of cooperating, he caused a scenario that was built on by United Airlines' failure for improper training.

Dao was under no obligation to cooperate.

He had already boarded and been assigned a seat. While United has the right to deny you boarding under very specific circumstances laid out in their Contract of Carriage (note: this situation doesn't meet the requirements based on what we know), they do not have the right to forcibly remove you after you have already boarded unless you have a medical emergency or are causing a disturbance that threatens the security of the aircraft.

Also, particularly for a doctor, the compensation offered ($800) was potentially less than what he would have lost by missing a day of work. My father is a doctor (albeit not in the same market or field) and every day he's out of the office costs him ~$5000 in overhead, staff wages and lost profits.

darkknight109 posted...

Also, particularly for a doctor, the compensation offered ($800) was potentially less than what he would have lost by missing a day of work. My father is a doctor (albeit not in the same market or field) and every day he's out of the office costs him ~$5000 in overhead, staff wages and lost profits.

Additionally, given Dao's past record and his revoked medical license, he's only allowed to practice once a week. So missing out on one day of work for him is like missing an entire week for a typical 5 day work week (since that one day is his whole week).

WastelandCowboy posted...

MICHALECOLE posted...

This was like.. twenty years ago.

Not sure how things work now. You used to sit there and wait and wait and wait until they hopefully called your name over the intercom. If they didn't call it in time you had to go to another terminal and wait and wait and wait and wait.

I remember crying to my mom and asking if we were ever going to leave the airport

I remember seeing people waiting for open seats.

I also remember being able to hug, kiss, and/or wave goodbye to my family from the ticket gate; walk up/down the aisle to help serve food (used to get a crapton of unused peanuts after the flight ended, and being able to go into the cockpit.

Yeah I went into the cockpit as a kid and got the wings. Got to fly the plane. Youngest pilot ever, pretty sure.

I'm not quite old enough to remember smoking on planes. That's my cutoff of "damn you're old"

This was like.. twenty years ago.

Not sure how things work now. You used to sit there and wait and wait and wait until they hopefully called your name over the intercom. If they didn't call it in time you had to go to another terminal and wait and wait and wait and wait.

I remember crying to my mom and asking if we were ever going to leave the airport

Sure, but don't you want to call to cancel and at least try to get some kind of partial refund? I mean I've never missed a flight, but I imagine cancelling two minutes before a flight as opposed to two months before a flight might get you less (if anything), but isn't it worth calling about?

I dunno. I just didn't think people were so ill-prepared to make their flights that it led to a near-fraudulent industry-wide practice.

That was his decision to make as a ticket holder though. He was not legally bound to comply with their "offer".

WastelandCowboy posted...

Mead posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

In this situation, yes, David Dao is at fault for not cooperating with the airline employees and law enforcement.

Law enforcement never should have been involved over a nonviolent civil dispute. He had a ticket so he was not trespassing, and airline regulations are not laws.

I never said he was trespassing, nor did I saw that airline regulations are law.

However, what I did say is that there is a procedure for events like this where the airline has mistakenly overbooked and not allowed space for their employees. This man chose to not comply with employees. If a Federal Air Marshall tells you to exit the plane, you better damn do so. If the pilot or another airline employee has a valid reason for you to exit the plane, you better damn do so.

You do have a point with law enforcement not being involved, but when the officer tells you to exit the plane and you do not comply, that's where you messed up.

Air Marshalls and Pilot authority are there to ensure the safety of everyone on board. Not to help the airline bottom line.

MICHALECOLE posted...

Empty seats = loss of profit

How much money do you think they're gonna lose now?

Bet they wish they hadn't overbooked at this point..

Yeah I actually would be curious - I would like to see a statistic on the total amount of money saved from overbooking (throughout all the years where overbooking has been a thing), versus the amount of money lost in this scenario.

Also, the question that always eludes me and doesn't get asked enough - Who the fuck is paying hundreds of dollars for a flight and then not showing up??

WastelandCowboy posted...

In this situation, yes, David Dao is at fault for not cooperating with the airline employees and law enforcement.

Law enforcement never should have been involved over a nonviolent civil dispute. He had a ticket so he was not trespassing, and airline regulations are not laws.

WarGreymon77 posted...

Deal. I need the money.

Because no one ever plays the lone sniper build in fallout games.

During Obama’s eight years in office, some 8.7 million Americans defaulted on their student loans, for a rate of one default roughly every 29 seconds.

Former Deputy Treasury Secretary Sarah Bloom Raskin worked on student loan policy during the latter years of the Obama administration, in part over concern that borrowers’ struggles were affecting the management of U.S. debt. DeVos’s decision to reverse some of her work “with no coherent explanation or substitute” effectively means that the Trump administration is placing the welfare of loan contractors above those of student debtors, she said.

In a statement Tuesday, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is suing Navient, agreed: “The Department of Education has decided it does not need to protect student loan borrowers.”

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Tuesday rolled back an Obama administration attempt to reform how student loan servicers collect debt.

Obama issued a pair (PDF) of memorandums (PDF) last year requiring that the government’s Federal Student Aid office, which services $1.1 trillion in government-owned student loans, do more to help borrowers manage, or even discharge, their debt. But in a memorandum (PDF) to the department’s student aid office, DeVos formally withdrew the Obama memos.

The previous administration’s approach, DeVos said, was inconsistent and full of shortcomings. She didn’t detail how the moves fell short, and her spokesmen, Jim Bradshaw and Matthew Frendewey, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

DeVos’s move comes a week after one of the student loan industry’s main lobbies asked for Congress’s help in delaying or substantially changing the Education Department’s loan servicing plans. In a pair of April 4 letters to leaders of the House and Senate appropriations committees, the National Council of Higher Education Resources said there were too many unanswered questions, including whether the Obama administration’s approach would be unnecessarily expensive.

A recent epidemic of student loan defaults and what authorities describe as systematic mistreatment of borrowers prompted the Obama administration, in its waning days, to force the FSA office to emphasize how debtors are treated, rather than maximize the amount of cash they can stump up to meet their obligations.

Obama’s team also sought to reduce the possibility that new contracts would be given to companies that mislead or otherwise harm debtors. The current round of contracts will terminate in 2019, and among three finalists for a new contract is Navient Corp. In January, state attorneys general in Illinois and Washington, along with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, sued Navient over allegations the company abused borrowers by taking shortcuts to boost its own bottom line. Navient has denied the allegations.

The withdrawal of the Obama administration guidelines could make Navient a more likely contender for that contract, government officials said. Navient shares moved higher after the government released DeVos’s decision around 11:30 a.m. New York time. Navient stock ended up almost 2 percent.

The Obama administration vision for how federal loans would be serviced almost certainly meant the feds would have to increase how much they pay loan contractors to collect monthly payments from borrowers and counsel them on repayment options. Already, the government annually spends around $800 million to collect on almost $1.1 trillion of debt. DeVos, however, made clear that her department would focus on curbing costs.

“We must create a student loan servicing environment that provides the highest quality customer service and increases accountability and transparency for all borrowers, while also limiting the cost to taxpayers,” DeVos said.

With her memo, DeVos has taken control of the complex and widely derided system in which the federal government collects monthly payments from tens of millions of Americans with government-owned student loans. The CFPB said in 2015 that the manner in which student loans are collected has been marred by “widespread failures.”

DeVos’s move “will certainly increase the likelihood of default,” said David Bergeron, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank with close ties to Democrats. Bergeron worked under Democratic and Republican administrations over more than 30 years at the Education Department. He retired as the head of postsecondary education.