I'm a new player (though played other Bloons TD games) and this is my first contested territory event. I currently managed to reach lvl19, but I think I was lvl16 at the beginning of the event. I played in "two territories" up until now. In the first territory, I managed to reach lvl31 or 32 but always died to the ZOMG. In the "territory" I'm now, the ZOMG comes at lvl15 already and I died so far to it, but since it's a close call, I think I could win with better tower placement/choices (it would be a lot easier if my strongest towers weren't banned).
In this "area", I'm with players between level 14 and 16 (I started at 15/16, but level up meanwhile). The current holder of the territory is a lvl14 player who managed to reach lvl28. Is that normal? I mean, if the ZOMG comes at level 15, I'd imagine that the levels after will be even harder. Is normal to be able to beat such levels at that player level? I'm looking at their city and it's quite small with few towers. I'm counting 6 ninjas, 10 darts (which are banned in this map), 3 spikes, 2 apprentices, 1 sniper, 1 tack, 1 eng, 1 bomb. Can you really beat levels past the ZOMG with that lineup? Other two lvl15/16 players managed to reach the 20+ levels, while one player stopped at lvl12 and the last one hasn't played yet. The strange thing is that I held the territory the longest time, they haven't played much.
Is this normal? Did I maybe level up too fast and I am too weak for my level while they bee-lined for an OP tower? Or do the waves each player face change depending on the player's level, so they get easier waves than me? I don't have any tier 4 upgrade (I don't think I can reasonably get an, they either require more money than I can hold or higher lvls). I have only tier 3 towers.
Which of these countries has the most time zones, including time zones of their dependent territories?
1 point
Multiple choice
- A: United Arab Emirates
- B: Germany
- C: Denmark
- D: Chile
Submitted by u/orangevg
#0446 - October 23, 2020 - Theme: Geography
JOIN OUR DISCORD! discord.gg/X592eNS
Give feedback on this question!
We are always looking for staff members! Apply here!
One of the things I really like about Satanism is that itβs a balance of immediate satisfaction and goal-oriented thinking.
We all have disputes with the people around us. And a lot of times, people act like total dicks and probably rightfully deserve your wrath (11th Rule of Earth). Admittedly, it sometimes feels good to snap back.
But other times, they can be put to better use. Consider your goals:
Are you trying to change minds? Then figure out their headspace and use that understanding to change their mind.
Are you trying to get something you need? Then take their shit with a smile knowing that this is a minor speed bump on your way to gratification.
Are you trying to win? Then bide your time and discover your opportunity.
A lot of people think that the 11th Satanic Rule of Earth implies that you must assert your superiority to be a Satanist. And honestly, the whole βtooth and clawβ stuff probably adds to that perception.
But the Balance Factor is much more than boneheaded brute strength. The Serpent is crafty. Sometimes subtle, sometimes barring fangs. Always clever.
Find your balance factor. Consider your goals. And strike at opportunity.
Michigan's upset was powered by a +43% margin among Independents comprising 27% of the total vote.
He lost to registered Democrats 58% - 40%. Despite the race moving to Blue states, his path to nomination hangs on the number of registrations of Independents or Republicans to Democrats before state deadlines - sometimes a MONTH BEFORE VOTING. This sub has done great work in activism to spread Bernie's message. Execution via Democratic Party registration is the next great challenge we face.
If your state has yet to vote, now is the time to familiarize yourself if you haven't already with your state's voting guidelines. Do not wait until the last minute to register. Start the conversation among your independent peers who support Bernie. Independents won't win Bernie the nomination after tonight's results.
The Official Calendar: https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/wiki/calendar
How and When to Vote By State: http://voteforbernie.org/
Let's crush the CLOSED edge that the Hillary camp is relying on!
I work for a tech company, which is crossing over from being a "startup" to a medium sized company, and after a year here I've noticed that certain territories give reps a HUGE advantage.
Is this a common thing? For us, our product is simply more competitive, and geared towards the city that we operate out of. It's hard in our market to be competitive in other states (something were working on) but the people in the preferred territory are making an insane amount of money compared to those in our "expansion territories"
I tried expressing this to my manager, and basically what I hear is "were a startup, and these things happen"
If anyone has dealt with something like this and was able to find a way to solve it, I'd love to hear some insight, and hopefully make a case to my managers to fix this over here as well.
Suppose there is an anarchist confederation in a region. There is a territory in the region that wants to split away, to secede. The production in this territory is vital to the rest of the confederation, think of it like a food basket of the region. The territory seceding would hurt the rest of the confederation then. Would the rest of confederation be justified in preventing that territory from leaving? What if them leaving was because of reactionary sections of the old order wanting reimpose itself?
Anarchists are not against the use of violence against counterrevolutionary or reactionary forces. But who gets to name the enemy as enemy? And isnβt that exercise of power already a form of imposing hierarchy on another group? Is there a hierarchy when we prevent that territory from seceding? Is there a hierarchy if we suppress the counterrevolutionary or reactionary forces in that territory?
The solution in Marxist-Leninism is clear: use state power to suppress the secessionist tendencies and keep the territory integrated into the region. The Soviet Union did it repeatedly against nationalist tendencies in the various SSRs. What would an anarchist confederation do?
Suppose there is an anarchist confederation in a region. There is a territory in the region that wants to split away, to secede. The production in this territory is vital to the rest of the confederation, think of it like a food basket of the region. The territory seceding would hurt the rest of the confederation then. Would the rest of confederation be justified in preventing that territory from leaving? What if them leaving was because of reactionary sections of the old order wanting reimpose itself?
Anarchists are not against the use of violence against counterrevolutionary or reactionary forces. But who gets to name the enemy as enemy? And isnβt that exercise of power already a form of imposing hierarchy on another group? Is there a hierarchy when we prevent that territory from seceding? Is there a hierarchy if we suppress the counterrevolutionary or reactionary forces in that territory?
The solution in Marxist-Leninism is clear: use state power to suppress the secessionist tendencies and keep the territory integrated into the region. The Soviet Union did it repeatedly against nationalist tendencies in the various SSRs. What would an anarchist confederation do?
Bookchin thinks that such a confederation would be justified in intervening for the common good especially if the territory is harming the environment or disregarding human rights. What do other anarchists think?
Bookchin from "Libertarian Municipalism: A Politics of Direct Democracy":
>If particular communities or neighborhoods (or a minority grouping of them) choose to go their own way to a point where human rights are violated or where ecological mayhem is permitted, the majority in a local or regional confederation has every right to prevent such malfeasances through its confederal council. This is not a denial of democracy but the assertion of a shared agreement by all to recognize civil rights and maintain the ecological integrity of a region. These rights and needs are not asserted so much by a confederal council as by the majority of the popular assemblies conceived as one large community that expresses its wishes through confederal deputies. Thus, policymaking still remains local, but its administration is vested in the confederal network as a whole. In effect, the confederation is a Community of communities, based on distinct human rights and ecological imperatives.
[http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-ursula-k-le-guin-the-next-revolution](http://theanarchis
... keep reading on reddit β‘
> I seek leave to move a motion without notice in regards to the status of Tokelau as a dependent territory of New Zealand.
I move, That this house formally urges the Tokelauan Fono to hold a referendum on granting Tokelau the same self-governing status of free association within the realm of New Zealand that the Cook Islands and Niue currently enjoy, using a simple First Past The Post voting system, with two options on the ballot of accepting or rejecting free association with New Zealand.
Submitted by /u/AnswerMeNow1 (MΔori).
Is there any objection?
Voting and debate will conclude at 8am, 21 January 2018.
I already proposed this act and I am proposing it again. This is a binding law.
In order to ensure fast integration of our subjects (colonial nations don't count towards subject development), but not at the expense of colonization, I propose the following act:
"All subjects of the main nation played (currently England) shall colonize only in colonial regions, and not in Africa nor in Asia and Oceania with the exception of the Australian colonial region, in which subject colonization may take place. The colonial regions, aside from the Australian colonial region, are:
Alaska
Canada
Eastern America
California
Mexico
Caribbean
Colombia
Peru
La Plata
Brazil "
