CleoTheWizard

I saw some stats on this months ago, especially after the initial explosion. I’m curious if the growth is still continuing at a good pace and also how everyone feels about the growth/activity within their communities.

Let me clarify: We have a certain amount of latency when streaming games from both local and internet servers. In either case, how do we improve that latency and what limits will we run in to as the technology progresses?

I’m considering a graduate degree in engineering but I’m not sure what to expect out of grad school compared to undergrad studies. Share whatever you’d like about your degree, experience earning it, if you’d do it over again, and how it’s affected your life.

I’ve used both Apple Music and Spotify in recent years and while their discovery is okay, it always plays it safe. As if they’ve made a genre that is just for me and won’t play anything outside of that. How do I expand my music horizons?

Finally getting around to checking out Fallout 4. I played it through without the DLC a while back but I think it’s about time I get down to it on my list and play through the DLCs. I wanted to do it on the survival difficulty or one of the harder ones at least. That led to me checking out the achievements. I don’t keep up with newer games but I didn’t realize achievements have gotten quite this bad. Most of the achievements are ones you get from the story itself, no challenge there. Then I found out there is no achievement for higher difficulties. I enjoy a challenge, it’s why I go back and play games that I enjoy. And I know it’s a reward in and of itself to beat it, but it feels less validating to not have an achievement. Especially in an open world game where people will want to experience more of it.

It’s not even that games have gotten easier per se, but more than they don’t reward playing on harder difficulties and skimp on challenges like achievements. I like harder difficulty because it encourages me to engage with every system I can. So what gives? Is this just me or has everyone else noticed how phoned in most achievements and difficulty options are these days?

Looking for an alternative to apps like TickTick and Todoist but I don’t want a subscription to deal with. I can justify a one time purchase of a todo app though as long as it’s reasonable. Any recommendations?

Or even just a good open source paid app?

U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, a maverick Democrat who has often bucked party leadership, told a radio station in his home state of West Virginia on Thursday that he is "thinking seriously" about leaving the party.

"I'm not a Washington Democrat," Manchin said in the interview on Talkline with Hoppy Kercheval, a West Virginia Metro News show. "I've been thinking seriously about that (becoming an independent) for quite some time."

Manchin and Democratic-turned-independent colleague Senator Kyrsten Sinema have been thorns in top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer's side since the party won its majority in 2020. Democrats hold a 51-49 majority, including three independents who caucus with them.

Last month Manchin further stirred Democratic concerns with an appearance in the early-voting state of New Hampshire with the "No Labels" group, where he mulled starting a third-party presidential campaign in 2024, challenging Democratic President Joe Biden. Having a third-party candidate would "threaten" the two major political parties, Manchin said.

Manchin has used his influence to block legislation that he opposes - including expanding voting rights protections and child tax credits - and to ensure passage of bills he supports, such as a major tax and climate law that passed last summer.

He faces a tough re-election bid next year in Republican-leaning West Virginia, which former President Donald Trump won by almost 39 percentage points in 2020. Manchin has not yet said if he will seek re-election, but he would face an even steeper road if he spurned his party and the fundraising support it can provide.

West Virginia Governor Jim Justice, a former Democrat-turned Republican, began his campaign in April for the Republican nomination to seek Manchin's seat.

Manchin, a popular former governor who was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010, has kept his seat in part by maintaining a reputation as a rare conservative Democrat in Washington.

Ohio’s special election on Tuesday could raise the threshold for amending the state’s constitution and have a potentially critical impact on the future of abortion rights in the state. With few other elections happening in an off year, a ballot measure in Ohio that would enshrine abortion rights in its constitution will be one of the most closely watched elections in November 2023. But first voters will decide this Tuesday on whether a supermajority should be necessary for constitutional amendments, which could require abortion rights advocates to climb a steeper hill to achieve their goal this fall.

Here are three things to know ahead of Ohio’s special election Tuesday:

It’s the first of two key ballot measures in Ohio this year Ohio voters will turn out at the polls twice in three months for ballot measures that will have long-lasting implications.

First, there’s the ballot measure being voted on in a special election on Tuesday. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) and state Rep. Brian Stewart (R) last November proposed this measure, which would raise the threshold for amending the state constitution. They said at the time that the amendment was intended to counter the influence of special interests and out-of-state actors.

Second, there’s a ballot measure on Nov. 8, which would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. The measure specifically states that Ohioans would have a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” with “reasonable limits.”

The Aug. 8 vote comes despite state lawmakers having approved legislation that mostly banned holding special elections in August.

The lawmakers determined that holding special elections that month was too expensive and had too little turnout to be fair or worth having. But Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) went ahead and signed the resolution from Stewart following approval from the state legislature, setting the Tuesday special election for raising the threshold to change the constitution. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in June following a legal challenge that the special election could move forward despite the law.

Abortion rights advocates, meanwhile, had proposed the second ballot measure, which seeks to protect abortion rights, after the state’s six-week ban on the practice was temporarily blocked amid legal battles. The ban had gone into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June, but was put on hold in September. A representative for Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, which proposed the abortion ballot measure, told The Hill last week that they do not expect to ultimately win the case, so it turned to the ballot measure.

Abortion rights advocates were able to gather more than 700,000 signatures to put the abortion measure on the ballot in November—about 300,000 more than necessary. LaRose certified that enough signatures had been obtained late last month.

It’s seen as a direct response to November abortion measure The amendment being voted on Tuesday, called Issue 1, would implement three policies that would make passing future amendments — including the November abortion rights measure — more difficult.

If approved, Issue 1 would require that, effective immediately, amendments would need to receive support from at least 60 percent of voters instead of the current threshold of a simple majority in order to go into effect.

It would also require that, starting Jan. 1, petitions for constitutional amendments receive signatures from at least 5 percent of voters in all 88 of Ohio’s counties based on how many people voted in the last gubernatorial election. Petitions currently only need to receive support from that amount in half of the state’s counties.

Lastly, the measure would eliminate a 10-day period that a petitioner has after submitting a petition for an amendment to obtain additional signatures if some of their signatures are determined to be invalid. That would also go into effect on Jan. 1.

Abortion rights activists have argued that Issue 1 was specifically designed to prevent the abortion rights measure in November from passing as polls show a majority of Ohioans would vote to protect rights to the procedure. LaRose has mostly argued that Issue 1 is about protecting the constitution, but he faced controversy for saying at one point that it is “100 percent about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution.” Lauren Blauvelt, the vice president of government affairs and public advocacy at Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio, told The Hill last week that her coalition reached enough signatures in 55 counties — considerably more than the current requirement — for the abortion measure to qualify for the November ballot. She argued that requiring signatures from all 88 counties would make citizens being able to put forward a ballot measure “impossible.”

Those advocating in favor of Issue 1, most of whom are Republican, have argued that putting these rules in place is necessary to stop special interests from being able to influence a governing document as powerful as the state’s constitution.

GOP strategist Mark Weaver argued that only having a simple majority to amend the constitution is a “very low bar.” His firm has produced some ads encouraging people to vote “yes” on the Aug. 8 ballot.

The current system for constitutional amendments in Ohio has operated since the modern constitution went into effect in 1912. Both are part of nationwide battle over abortion rights.

The fight over abortion in Ohio is just the latest in an extensive struggle over access to abortion in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe. Regardless of whether Issue 1 passes Tuesday, the abortion amendment passing in November would undoubtedly be a major win for abortion rights advocates in a state that moved to ban the procedure after Dobbs.

Referenda have been held in half a dozen states on abortion access questions over the past year. In each of those votes, the side in favor of abortion rights won. A measure to state that the Kansas constitution does not protect abortion rights failed last August in the first major test on abortion rights in the post-Roe world.

Voters in Vermont and California, two solidly liberal states, comfortably approved measures to codify abortion rights in their state constitutions in November, further safeguarding protections already protected through state law.

Michigan voters also approved a state constitutional amendment to protect access to abortion, overturning an almost century-old state ban that went into effect after Dobbs. At the same time, measures that would have put additional restrictions on abortion were narrowly rejected in the conservative-leaning states of Kentucky and Montana.

If the Ohio abortion rights amendment passes in November, it would be a major win for liberals in a state that has been trending red for years.

Jeff Rusnak, an Ohio strategist supporting the abortion amendment, told The Hill last week that the Tuesday measure can be a “change election” that sets the stage for November. Advocates are also engaging in efforts to put abortion rights on the ballot in several other states.

Those on both sides of Issue 1 have said they expect higher turnout than usual for a special election, given the attention that has been given to it.

Every day, employees at Aurora Pro Services, a North Carolina home-repair company, would gather for a mandatory prayer meeting, according to a federal complaint. They stood in a circle while leaders, including the company owner, allegedly read Bible scriptures and prayed. In the circle, the owner required Aurora’s employees to recite the Lord’s Prayer in unison and requested prayers for poorly performing employees, the complaint alleged. The meetings became “cult-like,” Mackenzie Saunders, a former Aurora employee, alleged in the complaint, filed in June 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Saunders, who is agnostic, attended the meetings after she was hired in November 2020 but stopped going in January 2021. John McGaha, another former employee, said the prayer meetings were about 10 minutes long when he started in the summer of 2020 and stretched to 45 minutes a few months later. When McGaha, an atheist, asked to be excluded from portions of the meetings, he was rebuked by Aurora’s owner, who said it would be in his “best interest” to attend, the complaint states. Days later, the company allegedly halved McGaha’s pay. When McGaha asked to skip the meetings a second time, he was allegedly told that he did not have to believe in God but that he had to participate in the prayer meetings.

Aurora fired McGaha and Saunders in 2020 and 2021, respectively, after they objected to the prayer meetings — a move that will cost the company $50,000, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced last week. The company has agreed to pay McGaha $37,500 and Saunders $12,500 to settle the religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, which the agency said violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The commission said it attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement before launching the lawsuit.

Aurora and attorneys for the company did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday evening. In an October court filing responding to allegations from McGaha, Aurora’s attorneys denied that the prayer meetings were mandatory, that they singled out poorly performing employees and that McGaha was terminated for refusing to participate in the prayers. McGaha objected to the meetings in a “disruptive” and “uncordial” manner on his last day of employment, according to Aurora’s response.

McGaha, a former construction manager for Aurora, joined the company in June 2020 and initially attended the company’s prayer meetings, which also briefly addressed business matters, according to the complaint. He grew uncomfortable as the meetings got longer and when, in one instance, he was allegedly asked to lead a prayer and declined.

Aurora’s owner, who is not named in the complaint, twice denied McGaha’s requests to be excused from portions of the meetings that involved prayer, according to the complaint.

“If you do not participate, that is okay, you don’t have to work here,” Aurora’s owner allegedly told McGaha in front of other employees. “You are getting paid to be here.” McGaha was fired in September 2020, six days after his second request to skip the meetings, according to the complaint.

Aurora was still holding the meetings that November when Saunders joined as a customer service representative, the complaint states.

While Saunders worked for Aurora, the owner allegedly took attendance at the prayer meetings and reprimanded employees for not attending. Saunders stopped attending the meetings in January 2021 and was terminated several weeks later because she was “not a good fit” for the company, the complaint states.

As part of the settlement, Aurora will train all of its employees, including its owner, on anti-discrimination and religious accommodation policies, the commission said.

“Federal law protects employees from having to choose between their sincerely held religious beliefs and their jobs,” said Melinda C. Dugas, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “Employers who sponsor prayer meetings in the workplace have a legal obligation to accommodate employees whose personal religious beliefs conflict with the company’s practice.”