buckshot roulette steam

buckshot roulette steam It's a perk of my job that sometimes I get to play a game earlier than most people. It's usually just a few days, sometimes a week, and very occasionally I'll get to preview a game a month or more before it's released. Only once has this ever happened, though: I got to play an entire build, start to finish, of mystery mansion puzzle game Blue Prince —and this was way back in August, before developer Dogubomb even knew when the game was coming out. Today on The PC Gaming Show: Most Wanted we finally got a release window: Blue Prince is coming in the spring of 2025. That's a bit weird for me, not just because I've already played it but because the 30 hours I spent in Blue Prince was the best gaming experience I had all year. I was all set to declare it my GOTY for 2024, but I suppose I'll have to save my vote for next year's ceremony. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that even though I played the whole game, and it felt perfectly polished to me, it might still not be done. When the idea for Blue Prince came to developer Tonda Ros and he sat down to start making it, "I had a complete build of the game done in three months," he told me back in August. "Start to finish, it was there. I had calculated it would take six more months to finish up, but that first three months went so well that my ambitions grew." That was eight years ago . Obviously, Ros' ambitions weren't the only thing that grew. That first build only contained half as many rooms as Blue Prince does now, and was "entirely stock assets at that point," but after hiring a team, the game and the mansion within it got much bigger. The short teaser shown during The PC Gaming Show: Most Wanted today isn't really enough to explain the game, so I'll give it a shot. In Blue Prince you've inherited a mysterious mansion from a family member, but to claim it you first have to explore its 45 rooms in search of a secret 46th room. You build the mansion yourself as you explore it: come to a door, choose one of three potential rooms that could be behind it, and when you open that door, the room you chose is what you'll find: it feels a lot like a board game in that respect. You have a limited number of steps you can take, so as you choose more rooms it also becomes a strategy game: what's the best way to build the mansion based on how many steps you have left? When you run out of steps, the mansion resets and you start building it all over again, so it's also a bit of a roguelike. "When I started the game, I had never heard of a roguelike," Ros told me. "I wasn't even familiar with that concept. And then the first deckbuilders came, I was like, 'Oh, they're bringing over board gaming elements.' And there's definitely some similarities. And then when Escape Rooms started getting popular, I was like, 'oh, this is cool, this is kind of bringing back the first person point-and click-adventures into a sort of more simplified, streamlined, more dense package.'" The biggest gaming news, reviews and hardware deals Keep up to date with the most important stories and the best deals, as picked by the PC Gamer team. Blue Prince is filled with puzzles, some contained to individual rooms and others that are spread throughout the mansion, and I have a dozen pages in my notebook filled with diagrams, clues, numbers, and sketches I created as I played to help me decode and decipher the mysteries of the mansion. This is a great one to play co-op with a partner sitting beside you, because while some puzzles can be solved pretty quickly, others will take ages as you build and rebuild the mansion over the course of days or weeks. Even though it's not coming out in 2024, I'm still calling it my honorary GOTY, because even in a year with stellar indie games like Balatro, The Rise of the Golden Idol, and UFO 50, Blue Prince is the best game I've played. I can't wait for everyone else to play it, too.Tyson Fury vs Oleksandr Usyk undercard fight cancelled as failed drugs test confirmed

Inside Trump's new administration: From business moguls to TV personalities

(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) Beth Gazley , Indiana University (THE CONVERSATION) The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that would empower the Treasury Department to eliminate the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit it deems to be supporting terrorism. The Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act was approved in a 219-184 vote , with all but one Republican backing it and only 15 Democrats voting for it, on Nov. 21, 2024. The Conversation U.S. philanthropy and nonprofits editor Emily Schwartz Greco spoke with Beth Gazley , an Indiana University scholar of nonprofits, local governance and civil society, to better understand the outcry over this measure – which would have to pass in the Senate before a U.S. president could sign it into law. President-elect Donald Trump, who will take office in January 2025, will begin his second term with narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress. That means an identical or similar bill could come across his desk after being reintroduced in the next Congress . Why are so many people concerned about this bill? I believe that this is part of a strategy to preempt opposition to Republican policies and encourage self-censorship. It’s a way for the GOP to try to restrict what activists and nonprofit organizations can say or do. And, essentially, it’s a threat to political opponents of President-elect Donald Trump. This kind of law could become a blunt sword that can be used against everybody. I’m not the only one who feels this way. U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin , a Democrat who previously was a constitutional law professor , called the bill “a werewolf in sheep’s clothing.” Raskin observed that “rendering support to terrorists is already a felony” and warned that this bill could end up “capsizing” all rights to due process. Several nonpartisan groups and associations representing a wide array of nonprofits, including the Council on Foundations, Independent Sector, the National Council of Nonprofits, and United Philanthropy Forum, issued a joint statement that condemned this measure ahead of its passage in the House. The groups said they were concerned that it would provide “the executive branch with expansive new authority that could be abused.” What do you think ‘terrorism’ means in this context? An earlier version of this legislation was introduced in December 2023 and passed in the House in April 2024. Based on the timing, it was widely interpreted as an attempt to quell widespread protests by students and other people who were expressing their solidarity with Palestinians and their objections to Israel’s military operations in Gaza. But this legislation could easily do far more than that because it does not distinguish between foreign and domestic terrorism – whether it’s real or imagined. Until now, the Treasury Department has taken great care in how it defines domestic terrorism, observing on its website that the Constitution and U.S. laws “protect a wide range of expression – even expression that many might disagree with or find abhorrent, and even expression that certain foreign allies and partners of the United States prohibit and criminalize under their own laws.” U.S. law stipulates that The Treasury Department has an obligation to remain nonpartisan in any of its interactions with tax-exempt organizations. As a result, making it easier for federal authorities to allege that a nonprofit is “terrorist” would be a big departure from American traditions. It could be turning the term into a kind of political rhetoric that’s meant to intimidate activists, including those holding campus protests. The lack of a clear definition in the legislation would leave room for interpretation. It’s not clear who would be held liable – it might even be the nonprofits’ donors. Constitutional protections may protect people in the end who get caught up in these allegations, but there’s no way to know how far this could go or how much it might upend their livelihoods while they defend themselves. What other concerns do you have? This bill reminds me of what’s happening around the world in countries where support for democratic principles is declining and right-wing governments are restricting dissent . I’m currently working with Jennifer Alexander , a public administration professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio, on a paper about this trend and how it’s tied to what’s already happening in many U.S. states. We’ve found this pattern most prevalent where the Republican Party has full control over the government – the GOP occupies the governor’s mansion and has a majority in both legislative chambers. We have found that at least 22 U.S. states have either passed new laws restricting protests or tightened laws that were already on the books, increasing the severity of possible punishment. These laws restrict public advocacy and organizing. I can see it being used to clamp down on environmental protests, like the ones held in Atlanta to object to the construction of a police training center in an urban forest, or in North Dakota , against the construction of an oil pipeline. This kind of measure could lead to more severe crackdowns, should there be a new wave of Black Lives Matter protests, similar to the ones in 2020 that followed George Floyd’s murder . Many of those demonstrations were organized by nonprofit groups. In Texas, state authorities have attempted to shut down charities that assist immigrants , leading to an outcry from civil rights groups. And Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has launched a probe of companies and nonprofits, including the God Is Good Foundation, that have allegedly conspired to bring noncitizens to the state . What do you think would happen if this measure were to become law? I can see how people intending to continue with the kind of mass mobilization organized by nonprofits might decide to go underground – to avoid the repercussions of activity that I would argue is clearly protected by the U.S. Constitution. Even without this measure becoming law, it has become possible for an organizer to be held liable in court for damage or injuries incurred during a demonstration – even if they personally did not engage in violence or destruction. Officially labeling an organization as “terrorist” can be very powerful. If this were to start happening, some of the population would never see that group any other way again. Many authoritarian regimes like to use this propaganda tool because it makes the public distrust those organizations. It places these organizations outside acceptable norms of civic engagement, despite nonprofits’ right to freedom of speech, assembly and petition embedded in the First Amendment to the Constitution. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/us-house-passes-measure-that-could-punish-nonprofits-treasury-department-decides-are-terrorist-244391 .

Dr Charlotte Proudman, who specialises in family law, had faced a Bar Standards Board (BSB) disciplinary tribunal over a 14-part Twitter thread criticising a judge’s ruling over a domestic abuse case, saying it echoed a “boys’ club”. However, the five charges against the 36-year-old were dropped on Thursday. In an interview with The Times, Dr Proudman described the position of Mark Neale, the board’s director-general, as “untenable” and said its chairwoman, Kathryn Stone, should also stand down. “They need a change, not just in those two individuals, though, because, of course, it seeps down to the rest of the organisation,” she said. She told the paper she “genuinely” wanted to work with the Bar Standards Board in helping them to understand how misogyny and sexism have impacted women at the bar. However, she said that “under the current leadership, it’s just not going to be possible”. The charges alleged Dr Proudman had “failed to act with integrity” in posting the tweets, that they amounted to professional misconduct, were “misleading” and “inaccurately reflected the findings of the judge” in the case. The women’s rights campaigner was also accused of behaving in a way “which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public placed in her and in the profession”, and that she “knowingly or recklessly misled or attempted to mislead the public” by making the posts. But panel chairman Nicholas Ainley found her tweets are protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right of freedom of expression. He said her tweets did not “gravely damage” the judiciary, which would “put them outside” of Article 10 protection, even if they “might not have been pleasant for any judge to read” or even “hurtful”. “We take the view that the judiciary of England and Wales is far more robust than that,” he said. The panel also concluded that some of the tweets were only inaccurate “to a minor degree” and not to the extent necessary for a charge of a lack of integrity. Speaking after the hearing, Dr Proudman told the PA news agency: “This ruling is a victory for women’s rights and a right to freedom of speech. “The prosecution against me brought by my regulatory body, the Bar Standards Board, should never have happened and I said that from day one. “I criticised a domestic abuse judgment. Everyone should have the right to do that, whether you’re a barrister or not. Our justice system, which I strongly believe in, is robust enough to withstand criticism from me.” She believes her tweets help “foster confidence” in the justice system, adding: “Only that way can we go about building change and a better treatment for all victims, women and children and men who are affected by domestic abuse.” Explaining that the BSB appears to have spent almost £40,000 “of barristers’ money” on instructing counsel in her case, she added: “I think it’s shameful that they’re using our money to pay for, in my view, malicious, vexatious prosecutions which I have no doubt was a personal attack against me as a woman and as a feminist, as an outspoken critic and advocate for women’s rights.” Dr Proudman called for “systemic change” within the board. “They don’t understand gender, they don’t understand diversity, I don’t think they’ve ever heard of the concept misogyny and certainly not institutional misogyny,” she said. “Until they recognise the deeply rooted, entrenched issue of bullying, harassment, sexism at the bar, for which I have suffered relentlessly... and own up to it I don’t think we’re going to see any change and I have no confidence in them.” She told of how male barristers have called her insulting names on social media and made derogatory comments about her. In the posts on April 6 2022, Dr Proudman referenced a case in which her client alleged she had been subjected to coercive and controlling behaviour by her husband, a part-time judge, meaning she had been “unable to freely enter” the couple’s “post-nuptial” financial agreement. Commenting on the ruling by Family Court judge Sir Jonathan Cohen, Dr Proudman wrote: “I represented Amanda Traharne.“She said she was coerced into signing a post-nuptial agreement by her husband (who is a part-time judge). I lost the case. “I do not accept the Judge’s reasoning. I will never accept the minimisation of domestic abuse.”She continued: “Demeaning the significance of domestic abuse has the affect of silencing victims and rendering perpetrators invisible. “This judgement has echoes of (t)he ‘boys club’ which still exists among men in powerful positions.”In the thread, Dr Proudman wrote that the judge had described the relationship of the couple as “tempestuous”, which she argued was a “trivialisation” of domestic abuse. “Tempestuous? Lose his temper? Isn’t this the trivialisation of domestic abuse & gendered language. This is not normal married life,” she wrote.Tuipulotu 'trying not to make Australia game bigger than it is'

Cleveland-Cliffs ( NYSE:CLF – Get Free Report ) and DeFi Technologies ( OTC:DEFTF – Get Free Report ) are both basic materials companies, but which is the better stock? We will contrast the two companies based on the strength of their institutional ownership, analyst recommendations, risk, profitability, valuation, earnings and dividends. Valuation & Earnings This table compares Cleveland-Cliffs and DeFi Technologies”s top-line revenue, earnings per share (EPS) and valuation. Cleveland-Cliffs has higher revenue and earnings than DeFi Technologies. Cleveland-Cliffs is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than DeFi Technologies, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks. Profitability Analyst Ratings This is a breakdown of recent ratings and price targets for Cleveland-Cliffs and DeFi Technologies, as reported by MarketBeat.com. Cleveland-Cliffs presently has a consensus target price of $17.56, indicating a potential upside of 40.78%. Given Cleveland-Cliffs’ higher possible upside, equities research analysts plainly believe Cleveland-Cliffs is more favorable than DeFi Technologies. Institutional and Insider Ownership 67.7% of Cleveland-Cliffs shares are owned by institutional investors. 1.8% of Cleveland-Cliffs shares are owned by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that endowments, large money managers and hedge funds believe a stock will outperform the market over the long term. Summary DeFi Technologies beats Cleveland-Cliffs on 7 of the 13 factors compared between the two stocks. About Cleveland-Cliffs ( Get Free Report ) Cleveland-Cliffs is the largest flat-rolled steel company and the largest iron ore pellet producer in North America. The company is vertically integrated from mining through iron making, steelmaking, rolling, finishing and downstream with hot and cold stamping of steel parts and components. The company was formerly known as Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. and changed its name to Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. in August 2017. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. was founded in 1847 and is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. About DeFi Technologies ( Get Free Report ) DeFi Technologies Inc., a technology company, develops and lists exchange traded products in Canada, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands. The company provides asset management services, such as investment vehicles, indirect exposure to underlying cryptocurrencies, digital asset indexes, and other decentralized finance instruments. It also participates in decentralized blockchain networks by processing data transactions that contribute to network security and stability, governance, and transaction validation. In addition, the company invests in decentralized finance companies in early-stage ventures. Further, it offers node management of decentralized protocols to support governance, security, and transaction validation for their networks. The company was formerly known as Valour Inc. and changed its name to DeFi Technologies Inc. in July 2023. DeFi Technologies Inc. was incorporated in 1986 and is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Receive News & Ratings for Cleveland-Cliffs Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Cleveland-Cliffs and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .

76ers' star Paul George sidelined the next 2 games with bone bruise in left kneeCORK, Ireland , Dec. 5, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- The board of directors of Johnson Controls International plc (NYSE: JCI), the global leader in smart, healthy and sustainable buildings, has approved a regular quarterly dividend of $0.37 per share of common stock, payable on Jan. 17, 2025 , to shareholders of record at the close of business on Dec. 23, 2024 . Johnson Controls has paid a consecutive dividend since 1887. About Johnson Controls At Johnson Controls (NYSE:JCI), we transform the environments where people live, work, learn and play. As the global leader in smart, healthy and sustainable buildings, our mission is to reimagine the performance of buildings to serve people, places and the planet. Building on a proud history of nearly 140 years of innovation, we deliver the blueprint of the future for industries such as healthcare, schools, data centers, airports, stadiums, manufacturing and beyond through OpenBlue, our comprehensive digital offering. Today, with a global team of experts, Johnson Controls offers the world`s largest portfolio of building technology and software as well as service solutions from some of the most trusted names in the industry. Visit www.johnsoncontrols.com for more information and follow @Johnson Controls on social platforms. INVESTOR CONTACT: Jim Lucas Direct: +1 414.340.1752 Email: jim.lucas@jci.com MEDIA CONTACT: Danielle Canzanella Direct: +1 203.499.8297 Email: danielle.canzanella@jci.com View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/johnson-controls-announces-quarterly-dividend-302324312.html SOURCE Johnson Controls International plcICFunded Guides Investors Through Global Financial Instability