humble freedom bundle

popularity of MMOs in eastern european countries

Do you have some sources for that? I know about popularity in eastern hemisphere aka Korea, China. Haven't heard about Europe yet.

While multiplayer plays an amplifying role, I don't see the effect limited to MMOs only.

The two Don't Starve games. Nothing else. Nor, I suspect, will be anything else, at least not among the currently existing ones.

Oh right. I recall what you mean now. The favorite part... how could I forget

It's still a lot of money to spend on one payment. Especially if you already own a lot of the games or are only interested in a couple. That's why I like the tiered bundles. You at least get some choice in there if there are only a couple of games you want. Here it is either you spend a lot of money and get a lot of games you might not want, or you don't buy anything.

Ah, okay. I just seen the 300k bar and that they add double, but didn't really checked on if they match the purchases up to 300k or they give up to 300k :)

Yeah, the leftovers will be for giveaways maybe around the weekend.

Travel bans might not be unconstitutional, but unconstitutional ones certainly are.

Now Trump needs to convince the courts that it isn't a Muslim ban when he explicitly campaigned on it being a Muslim ban. Turns out that people don't just throw out the footage of Trump running his mouth. Oops.

Parts of the ban are constitutional, parts are unconstitutional and parts are questionable.

The part that is unconstitutional is banning foreigners with a valid greencard without due process
The part that is constitutional is that the president may suspend entry to a class of foreigners upon a finding that entry would be detrimental to the united states
The parts that are questionable are (1) such finding must have a basis in fact; it cannot be "arbitrary and capricious", and
(2) The U.S. has agreements with some of those 7 countries formalizing the visa process / entry process for nationals in both directions. Such agreements have been ratified by congress and have the same legal validity as federal law (i.e. the only higher law is the constitution). The law providing that the president may by proclamation suspend entry is also federal law, meaning they are of equal standing - and conflict with each other unless there's a suspension clause in the treaty. I've not read the actual treaties, as ratified by congress
It is therefore unclear which takes priority, the statute permitting the suspension of entry, or the treaty dictating the terms & conditions of entry. Best guess is that it's a chronological issue, with treaties ratified before the statute was passed being treated differently than treaties ratified after. But that's not my area of expertise.

And, just to be clear, there has not been a judgment on the merits. The lower court that issued a temporary restraining order merely ascertained that there was a sufficient likelihood the government could lose its case and that there was a sufficient risk of irreparable harm to warrant a TRO. The appellate decision ruled that the executive order was subject to judicial review (says so in the constitution) and that the government had not met the burden of proof to stay the TRO - they did not show a sufficient likelihood of imminent harm if the TRO was not stayed.
Again, courts have not ruled as to whether or not the executive order is constitutional, in whole or in part, nor has it ruled on whether the entire executive order should be tossed, or only the unconstitutional parts (if any). The court has merely told the government to wait with enforcing the executive order until there is a hearing to determine whether or not it's constitutional