Pako Battiliar and its evolution‚ Mazo Familiar‚ are now available in Vampire Survivors. Bats‚ beware! How to unlock Pako Battiliar in Vampire Survivors To unlock Pako Battiliar in Vampire Survivors‚ you need to defeat a total of 161‚616 bats. Odd number‚ I know‚ but it should be easy to do if you play a lot of Bat Country. Don’t worry‚ you don’t need to defeat 161‚616 bats in one run — as long as you kill that many bats‚ it doesn’t matter how many runs it takes you or what stage you do it in. Related: How to unlock new weapons in Vampire Survivors Among Us DLC The Pako Battiliar is a great weapon that sends a wave of bats across the screen‚ damaging everything in their way. It has eight levels like every other weapon and here’s what they are: Level 1: May retaliate when losing health. Level 2: Passes through one more enemy. Increases base Speed by 30%. Level 3: Fires one more projectile. Reduces cooldown by half a second. Level 4: Fir...

This time around Adam is opening up a pair of packs of RoboCop 2 trading cards by TOPPS from 1990‚ featuring images from both RoboCop films. For more episodes of Wax Pack Flashback with Adam‚ CONTINUE READING... The post Wax Pack Flashback: RoboCop 2 (1990) appeared first on The Retro Network.

In the wake of the recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling related to in vitro fertilization clinics/practices‚ policymakers are likely to respond by overreacting and making hasty policy decisions. Suggesting a new federal benefit mandate is one of those ill-advised ideas. A federal benefit mandate for IVF would not only raise the cost of health care coverage‚ but it would further entrench efforts by the Left to consolidate federal control over health care that intensified under Obamacare. All health insurance benefit mandates—whether enacted at the state or federal level—increase the cost of health insurance‚ thus harming consumers. While the same arguments apply to state benefit mandates‚ enacting a federal benefit mandate would be worse because of its broader scope—applying not only to health insurance regulated by any state‚ but also to employer self-insured plans and federal health care programs. Indeed‚ one of the biggest problems with Obamacare was that it preempted state regulatory authority to create a federal health insurance benefit floor called “Essential Health Benefits” for the individual and small-group health insurance markets. Obamacare’s EHB requirements have been among the factors responsible for increasing the cost of coverage in those markets.  Mandating coverage for what are essentially elective treatments‚ such as infertility treatments or cosmetic surgeries‚ raise other practical issues and can entail additional costs. The cost and therefore premium impact could vary widely‚ depending on the specifics of the mandate with respect to factors such as technologies and services that must be paid for and the circumstances to which the benefit applies and the frequency with which enrollees can use the services. Today‚ according to an analysis by Forbes‚ the 2024 monthly premium cost of an average Obamacare plan for a single 40-year-old individual is $469‚ and for a 40-year-old couple‚ it is $937. If that couple also has a child‚ the monthly premium is $1‚214‚ and if they have two children‚ it’s $1‚491. That translates into $17‚892 in annual health insurance premiums for a family of four. Furthermore‚ in addition to premiums‚ there is also the cost of deductibles and other enrollee co-payments. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average weighted deductible for Obamacare plans is $3‚057 and can reach $7‚258 for certain plan types. Some individuals may qualify for subsidies to offset premiums and cost sharing‚ but not all. A federal benefit mandate would also affect employer-sponsored coverage. In its 2023 annual Employer Health Benefits survey‚ the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that “[a]nnual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $23‚968 this year‚ with workers on average paying $6‚575 toward the cost of their coverage. The average deductible among covered workers in a plan with a general annual deductible is $1‚735 for single coverage.” Adding new federal benefit mandates would further increase the already high cost of health insurance coverage. From a larger health policy perspective‚ conservatives have long warned that efforts to consolidate control over health care through the federal government is the liberal playbook for achieving a single-payer‚ government-run health care model in the U.S. The misguided federal one-size-fits-all response to COVID-19 should serve as a cautionary example to policymakers about the dangers and costs associated with relying on federal bureaucrats to micromanage America’s health care system.   When it comes to health insurance coverage‚ Congress should instead focus on reducing the cost of health care for Americans and restoring state authority over the regulation of health insurance. Any new federal benefit mandates would do the opposite. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Why New Federal Health Care Benefit Mandates Must Be Avoided appeared first on The Daily Signal.

There's a lot more to being the first lady than just standing next to the president at White House functions. These women have important roles‚ and as such‚ they also have some rules to live by. Everything from how they decorate the White House to the gifts they receive must follow specific guidelines. Some rules are actually quite liberating‚ like the ability to hold an outside job or opt not to... Source

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The UK has a new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Tech and the Digital Economy‚ Conservative MP Saqib Bhatti‚ and the politician seems very enthusiastic when talking about things like “cooperation” with Big Tech‚ particularly in terms of elections. That’s because‚ critics will say‚ those in power want to absolutely control the conversation‚ what can and can’t be said online‚ and thus directly influence the vote; whereas those in power say‚ it’s all just a perfectly benevolent effort to make sure misinformation plays no part in the campaign. One person’s “cooperation” is another’s “collusion.” And so Bhatti hinted in a recent interview that ahead of the UK’s upcoming general election a key task to be achieved is to have the government and Big Tech “reconvene” for another round of “misinformation tackling.” And that‚ as easy as not‚ may mean aggressive online censorship of views critical of the ruling party. After possibly offending any real “tech geek” by calling himself that – Bhatti in time revealed that actual technology is not the most important thing a person in charge of Tech and the Digital Economy‚ as well those in the Department for Science‚ Innovation and Technology (DSIT)‚ have to work on in the UK. No – instead‚ it’s “misinformation and disinformation.” A very succinct way of demonstrating that those in power think about staying in power far more energetically than they consider things such as innovation‚ economic progress tied to digital tech‚ and even properly regulating the field. And so people who call themselves “tech geeks” are deeply involved in making sure “moderation” (i.e.‚ censorship) is alive and well on major platforms‚ and also‚ framing all this as a crucial “battle for democracy.” It’s all politics in other words – and no “tech.” “In October‚ Science‚ Innovation and Technology Secretary‚ Michelle Donelan‚ hosted a roundtable with the UK leaders of social media companies Google‚ Meta‚ X‚ TikTok‚ and Snapchat to discuss the spread of antisemitism‚ violent content‚ and misinformation following the Hamas attack on Israel‚” one report said. And Bhatti‚ the “tech nerd‚” thinks another such “intervention” could be needed – this time related to the general election. Bhatti’s by no means an outlier here – this is clearly the current UK government’s policy. Only this week‚ Home Secretary James Cleverly was in the US‚ to “convene” with Apple‚ Google‚ Meta‚ and X. Why? Said a government source: “(To make sure there are) safeguards against attempts at malign influence in the democratic process.” The post UK Government Pressures Social Media Giants To Tackle “Misinformation” Ahead of Elections appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A court has ruled that the reaction (in this case‚ YouTube) video “genre” represents fair use under copyright rules (DMCA). The case involves Thiccc Boy Productions suing Kyle Swindelles for alleged copyright infringement. Thiccc Boy claimed that the violation happened regarding videos of a podcast the company produces – The Fighter and the Kid‚ hosted by Brendan Schaub. Swindelles included a number of segments from Thiccc YouTube material in his own reaction videos. The US District Court for Rhode Island which dealt with the lawsuit‚ stated that while there is no doubt that this had happened – Swindelles’ defense was that his inclusion of the said material is protected by the fair use rule. We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here. The fair use doctrine‚ the court remarked‚ was added to the Copyright Act in order to limit “the otherwise exclusive rights enjoyed by copyright holders.” The decision to rule in Swindelles’ favor is explained by stating that the four videos cited by Thiccc Boy‚ instead of infringing‚ “undisputedly commented on the quality of the discussion in the copyrighted works.” As for the videos whose copyright was allegedly violated‚ the court found that their nature – three people in a basic “studio” consisting of chairs and microphones‚ discussing popular culture and events in their own lives‚ is effectively the equivalent of TV talk show clips. Once again‚ because of the nature of it all – those very same (Thiccc Boy) videos being reaction and commentary on copyrighted content of others – they are “more factual than creative.” As for Swindelles also showing frames of that copyrighted martial of others‚ first included in the Thiccc Boy videos – the court said this was not a violation because Swindelles neither commented on nor criticized those. Examining the question of whether the audience could be fooled into thinking Thiccc Boy videos are actually made by Swindelles‚ the judge decided that the commentary and criticism expressed in the reaction videos make sure this does not happen. All in all‚ the ruling concludes that‚ “Mr. Swindelles’ use of the copyrighted material serves a public benefit.” And it doesn’t seem that the podcast host Schaub decided it was a good idea to state he was going after those “harassing him online‚ including comics” – (so was it harassing – or infringement that’s the problem?) Schaub went on to make threats of “monster lawyers and friends in dark places who are going to get the job done.” “Troublesome‚” is how the court described these comments. The post Court Confirms Reaction Videos Are Fair Use appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. For some reason quietly‚ X has started enforcing revised rules‚ detailed in its platform guidelines for users – among other things‚ adding a section to the “Abuse and Harassment” that concerns the use of pronouns‚ and speech referring to persons “transitioning” (in terms of transgenderism). The “amended” rules came into force at some point between January 24 and 27 this year‚ and should an X user be found to “purposefully” address another using a pronoun different than what that user has chosen for themselves‚ they can expect to be (and they ostensibly already are) punished by having their posts’ visibility on the platform “reduced.” Related: Rep. Jim Banks criticizes Twitter for locking his official account It’s not entirely clear if this constitutes straight-forward shadowbanning‚ i.e.‚ if the supposed guidelines violator is immediately notified of this; but given the nebulous nature of any attempt to determine if someone is doing this “purposefully” – the revised rules spell out that those addressed using “the wrong pronouns” will be consulted. Some see this as a slow return to the policies and general trends in content moderation/censorship that once blossomed so wildly on Twitter. What is undeniable is that the “Abuse and Harassment” guidelines now go into the pronouns of it all‚ although they were not mentioned in the June 2023 version. But now they feature under the section‚ “Insults.” The January 2024 version includes a subtitle‚ “Use of Prior Names and Pronouns.” It reads as follows: “We will reduce the visibility of posts that purposefully use different pronouns to address someone other than what that person uses for themselves‚ or that use a previous name that someone no longer goes by as part of their transition.” But how does X‚ or anyone for that matter‚ decide that something of this kind is “purposeful”? The near impossibility of doing so is referred to as‚ “complexity.” “Given the complexity of determining whether such a violation has occurred‚ we must always hear from the target to determine if a violation has occurred‚” the new guidelines read‚ again – no word if X will also “hear” from those accused of making the offense. It seems that X has decided to expend a lot of time and energy‚ and no doubt money‚ in order to make this work. It remains to be seen (and evidence so far from users to be heard) about how the whole thing works‚ or doesn’t – but meantime‚ X looks dead set to torment itself – and its users – by trying to figure out what is done on purpose‚ what is accidental‚ what might be thoughtless‚ or just light-heated. Says one of the paragraphs added to the guidelines: “Some posts may appear to be harmful when viewed in isolation‚ but may not be when viewed in the context of a larger conversation. For example‚ friends may consensually use certain terms or phrases to engage with each other that could appear abusive without this context.” The post X Says It Will Reduce the Visibility of Posts That Purposely Ignore a Person’s Preferred Pronouns appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Sign Up To Keep Reading This post is for Reclaim The Net supporters. Gain access to the entire archive of features and supporters-only content. Help protect free speech‚ freedom from surveillance‚ and digital civil liberties. Join Already a supporter? Login here The post A Private‚ Open-Source‚ Self-Hosted Photo and Video Backup Solution appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Do Newly Released Documents Provide a Smoking Gun for the Lab Leak Theory?

'Three-Alarm Fire': Marianne Williamson Unsuspends Campaign