If it’s a word that already ends in an s in its singular form, like Travis, I would pronounce it like “Travis is”.
It’s a word that only got an s at the end because it’s pluralized, like “Smiths”, I would generally just pronounce it like “Smiths”.
The US election is an election of elections.
They break the election into smaller elections, based on where people live. It doesn’t matter if someone gets 99% of the votes in that area, or 50.0000001% of the votes. Winning is winning.
So if someone wins 49% of the smaller elections, but wins them with a high enough amount, they can have more total votes and still lose the whole thing.
Edit: Let’s say there are only 3 areas of 10 people each.
Area 1: Goes to Person A
Person A: 9
Person B: 1
Area 2: Goes to Person B
Person A: 4
Person B: 6
Area 3: Goes to Person B
Person A: 4
Person B: 6
So person B wins 2 of the 3 mini elections, which makes them win the whole thing.
Person B had 13 votes, Person A had 17 votes.
Person A would win if it was “popular vote”
Sorry, I thought the person who was assumed dead was the father, not the character receiving the shares. If the person receiving the shares was the one assumed dead, it makes way more sense as to why it was less believable. It’s still possible but, unless things were set-up in a way that already assumed that everyone would be dead, except for that one guy, who is still totally alive but is going to be missing for a while, then it’s highly unlikely.
Then again, this is a universe where magic exists, so a wizard did it.
Depending on how long MC was presumed dead, and if there were any issues with either his estate, or of his father, the shares could be held by the personal representative of either estate for quite some time. If there was any less than 7 years between when his father died, and when he came back, then it’s completely reasonable that he would be entitled to those shares. The longer it is after that seven years, the less likely it is that he would have the shares. The shares could’ve also been held by another entity, like a family trust or holding company. And as long as a trustee, or a controlling interest in the holding company, was still alive and willing, they could give him back the shares.
But: He wouldn’t have an officer or director position in the main company if he was presumed dead. Directors need to be re-appointed every year, and depending on the set-up of the corporation, you sometimes need to be a director in order to be an officer, or the officers need to be reappointed every year. A position like “chairman” was likely appointed to someone else rather quickly after the presumed death. Then again, it might also have the wildest bylaws ever written, likely by a wizard.
Banana also isn’t a valid answer, but if you have the chance, you always go Banana.
It probably was just bad writing for the sake of a forced story line, but the board can (generally) vote out the chair, and the shares going from a deceased person to another entity is called transmission. Transmissions do generally require the directors to sign a resolution or two though, and if they voted him out as the chair, then they likely would do what they could to prevent the transfer of the shares.
And even if they booted him as chair of the board, it likely wouldn’t have much of a financial effect.
Honestly, it’s possible, but I’ve never seen the show, and I don’t know if they break down the corporate structure.
Owning a majority of the stocks in a corporation, doesn’t automatically mean you have any real power.
Having the majority of shares, even if they are voting shares, doesn’t mean you are part of the board of directors. And if the shares that MC held were retractable and redeemable, even if they are voting shares, then the board can force the shareholder to redeem (aka sell) them back to the corporation, often at a pre-set price.
“But, the voting shareholders decide who’s on the board, and he had the majority of the shares!” I heard you say.
Again, does he actually have voting shares, or just the majority of the shares issued?
Do we know what constitutes a quorum of the shareholders according to the bylaws of the corporation? AKA if he has 51% of the shares, but they need persons holding at least 60% of the voting shares in order to hold a vote, can he get enough shareholders together to hold a vote to change the directors before the directors vote that need needs to redeem his shares?
Was he completely forced to sell/redeem his shares, or was his officer role just removed? (aka, he’s no longer the President, the Secretary-Treasurer, or whatever). Shareholders are a step removed from choosing who the Officers are. Generally, Shareholders choose the Directors, the Directors choose the officers, and the Officers are the ones who issue the shares (even though they are often compelled to sign the share certificates by the Directors, the bylaws, or other resolutions).
So if he owns the majority of the shares, and was an officer, then he could very easily be removed as an officer, assuming that there wasn’t a stipulation in his original appointment. Again, I would need to see the articles, the bylaws, any Unanimous Shareholder Agreements, resolutions, and other agreements.
Also, everything I wrote might not be valid in your jurisdiction. Don’t take the late-night ramblings of anyone online as legal advice.
That’s 8 keystrokes, nice!
People answering a question like “Would you like to do X, or Y?” with “yes.”
I didn’t fucking ask “Would you like to do X or Y?”, so put down whatever solvent you are chugging, then give me your choice.
The law, in basically everything.
Some places give you a whole week to vote, and the polls are open 12 hours a day. So if you something happens and your plans are ruined, you have ample time to still make it to the polls.
You may want to also post this to !linuxmemes@lemmy.world
I think it’s because they are emulating chaos-based reality tv shows.
These garbage reality shows had people using speaker-phones in public so they can record both sides of the conversation as easily as possible.
It’s sounds like you ate Capt’n Crunch this morning, instead of a heaping bowl of Cap’italism.
Our system rewards people who would kill babies in order to make 4% more than last quarter. Anything less than “even more profitable than last quarter” is a sin for which there is no penance.
You can always make one if there isn’t, but you will likely need to heavily moderate it.
A card that costs $100+, about once a day.
A card that costs $250+, about once a week.
I did once sell 4 dual-lands in a week, all in different transactions, but that was a fluke. Also, I was trying to sell them as a personal challenge.
Edit: This was a physical store, I assume larger mostly only stores would sell more.
Life is Strange and Vampyr are the only things they’ve done that I can say that I’ve played.
You can’t go 6+ years without releasing something that sells well and still survive. I am not sure that having 8 games in production was a great idea, but maybe a last attempt at getting something to stick and then focus on one or two games was their best option.
You can block them in Lemmy without the use of an ap.
If you use a browser, you know that the formatting works as intended, and you don’t have anything thing installed on your phone.
If you use an app, you may have a layout you prefer, and you may have a new feature or two that you like.
The three “normal” suggestions are: