It's not really a "free video game giveaway" if you need to pay for a membership to get it.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html

If this is an accurate translation of the laws, 203 is about doctors, lawyers, government officials, etc. sharing priveledged information they had access to because of their jobs and 206 only applies to owners/employees of telecommunications or delivery services.

Edit: and to go one step further, Section 201: Violation of Privacy of Spoken Word means you can't record phone calls without everyone's permission, but Section 202: Violation of Privacy of Correspondence is about opening other people's letters.

They also tried to pull people in by releasing a new game for free every week (even AAA titles!), which was actually the coolest thing they ever did.

You're using the past tense, but they're very much still giving away games for free. On a related note for OP, I'm pretty sure amazon prime gives away games for free too, so if you don't know where to start, you can always start with something that doesn't cost you anything (extra, assuming you have prime).

The tree on the right has that block missing in its shadow, the trees on the left are casting their shadows in a slightly different direction, and they guy on the dirt path's shadow seems too dark and clear. Once you pointed out something was wrong, it's hard not to see other mistakes.

In many balanced literacy classrooms, children are taught phonics and the cueing system. Some kids who are taught both approaches realize pretty quickly that sounding out a word is the most efficient and reliable way to know what it is. Those kids tend to have an easier time understanding the ways that sounds and letters relate. They'll drop the cueing strategies and begin building that big bank of instantly known words that is so necessary for skilled reading.

But some children will skip the sounding out if they're taught they have other options. Phonics is challenging for many kids. The cueing strategies seem quicker and easier at first. And by using context and memorizing a bunch of words, many children can look like good readers — until they get to about third grade, when their books begin to have more words, longer words, and fewer pictures. Then they're stuck. They haven't developed their sounding-out skills. Their bank of known words is limited. Reading is slow and laborious and they don't like it, so they don't do it if they don't have to. While their peers who mastered decoding early are reading and teaching themselves new words every day, the kids who clung to the cueing approach are falling further and further behind.

These poor reading habits, once ingrained at a young age, can follow kids into high school. Some kids who were taught the cueing approach never become good readers. Not because they're incapable of learning to read well but because they were taught the strategies of struggling readers.

Another reason cueing holds on is that it seems to work for some children. But researchers estimate there's a percentage of kids — perhaps about 40 percent — who will learn to read no matter how they're taught. According to Kilpatrick, children who learn to read with cueing are succeeding in spite of the instruction, not because of it.

Maybe your kid is one of the lucky ones that can read fine regardless of how he's taught. But not everyone will be. That's the point of changing how reading is taught, to be more effective for the highest number of people.

But you could also try giving him a reading test like the ones presented at the top of this website https://readingtests.info/ and see for yourself how well he reads an unfamiliar story.

Polar Functions and dydx

We are interested in the lines tangent a given graph, regardless of whether that graph is produced by rectangular, parametric, or polar equations. In each of these contexts, the slope of the tangent line is dydx. Given r=f(θ), we are generally not concerned with r′=f′(θ); that describes how fast r changes with respect to θ. Instead, we will use x=f(θ)cosθ, y=f(θ)sinθ to compute dydx.

From the link above. I really don't understand why you seem to think a tangent line in polar coordinates would be a circle.

https://www.protondb.com/search?q=call%20of%20duty

If you're in the US (as Obinice pointed out), type your zipcode in the box in the top left and you've got your hyper local forecast and any relevant warnings and watches. I don't care for or want extra notifications, so that's a bit of a blindspot for me.

Also, if you're using firefox on android you can hit the 3 dots and "install" the zipcode specific forecast, which just gives you a shortcut to that page on your homescreen.

Looking at the Food & Drink section, it doesn't look like you can get much more than coffee and meat with monero, so I'm really not sure how you're supposed to "be your own bank" by using it and still have access to food.

I think the problem is that it's also being sold as a dlc of sorts.

Even if it can be obtained in-game without purchasing it separately, why is it available for purchase?

From that we can conclude that after an initial burst in death numbers, as covid and other viruses passes through the populace, death rates return to normal.

I mean, no, we really can't. There's not enough data available (that I'm willing to search for) to say for absolutely sure that excess deaths has increased and will stay high, but even just the snapshot you provided here shows that it's slightly lower in January, and massively higher the rest of the year. Maybe the May 2023 data shows that the numbers are evening out compared to 2016-2019, but the one year we actually get to see shows way more excess deaths over the course of a year compared to before. You can't just look at the most recent month, that's not how yearly trends and averages work.

You won't have much of an argument that the numbers are going back to "normal" until you've got closer to a full year's worth of data with that excess deaths line being close to zero.

It was determined the cost economically was far higher than the returns.

Not quite.

In the end the project ran for four years, concluding in 1979, but the data collection lasted for only two years and virtually no analysis was done by project staff. New governments at both federal and provincial levels reflected the changing intellectual and economic climate. Neither the Progressive Conservative government of Joe Clark in Ottawa nor Sterling Lyon’s Tories in Manitoba were interested in continuing the GAI experiments. The fate of the original data—boxes and boxes of paper files on families containing questionnaires related to all aspects of social and economic functioning—was unclear. They were stored in an unpublicized location by the Department of National Health and Welfare. In the end, only the Winnipeg sample, and only the labour market aspects of that sample, was ever made available. The Dauphin data, collected at great expense and some controversy from participants in the first large scale social experiment ever conducted in Canada, were never examined.

This study involved using one small town, Dauphin, as a a test for what happens when everyone in the population qualifies for the basic income. The study ran out of money long before the researchers originally thought it would, and the majority of the data wasn't analyzed until relatively recently.

The general result found in all the experiments was that secondary earners tended to take some part of the increased family income in the form of more time for household production, particularly staying home with newborns. Effectively, married women used the GAI to finance longer maternity leaves. Tertiary earners, largely adolescent males, reduced their hours of work dramatically, but the largest decreases occurred because they began to enter the workforce later. This delay in taking a first job at an older age suggests that some of these adolescent males might be spending more years in school. The biggest effects, that is, could be seen as either an economic cost in the form of work disincentives or an economic benefit in the form of human capital accumulation.

New mothers and teenagers weren't required to spend as much time working

Money flowed to Dauphin families from MINCOME between 1974 and 1978. During the experiment, Dauphin students in grade 11 seemed more likely to continue to grade 12 than their rural or urban counterparts, while both before and after the experiment they were less likely than their urban counterparts and not significantly more or less likely than their rural counterparts to complete highschool. Grade 11 enrolments as a percentage of the previous year grade 10 enrolments show a similar pattern.

Highschool graduation rates went up

Overall, the measured impact was larger than one might have expected when only about a third of families qualified for support at any one time and many of the supplements would have been small. ...At the very least, the suggestive finding that hospitalization rates among Dauphin subjects fell by 8.5 percent relative to the comparison group is worth examining more closely in an era characterized by concern about the increasing burden of health care costs. In 1978, Canada spent $7.5 billion on hospital costs; in 2010 it was estimated to have spent $55 billion—8.5 percent of which adds up to more than $4.6 billion. While we recognize that one must be careful in generalizing potential health system savings, particularly because we use hospitals differently today than we did in 1978, the potential saving in hospital costs associated with a GAI seems worthy of consideration.

And hospitalization rates went down. There were other effects, like small businesses opening during the period of MINCOME and shutting down after, a possible decline in women under 25 having children, but none of this was evaluated for whether it was worth the money or not.