安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题









https://pastebin.com/0v4JtcYF
I think that's about it? If happen by while I'm thinking about it again, I'll let you know. Making some decent strides with this one. Hopefully, you understand that my input is meant as constructive criticism and not random trolling. Keep up the good work.
5. State health programs actually do drive innovation. Well, public research funding does. In the last 30 years, the U.S. government has poured millions into pharmaceutical research and now we have several ways to combat HIV and AIDS, less invasive treatments for cancer, early detection capabilities for cancer and other ailments, and many other advances in medical science that are paid for by the taxpayers and then sold back to them for egregious profits.
-- Recommended fix: regulated private pensions would have an impact on equality, so keep it. Private housing DECREASES equality.
-- Recommended fix: look at Japan and base your model on that.