Cethin

To expand on the other comment, to include in the rules everything that doesn’t happen would be insane. If it isn’t in the rules it isn’t in the rules. You don’t have to list every possible thing that a player may say applies for it to not be included. If a player falls out of their chair, does that change the result? It isn’t included in either of these rulesets…

Also a reminder that Pathfinder 2E has a significantly better system for criticals, in a way that makes sense for ability checks. It has degrees of success and failure, and a crit only moves it one degree higher or lower, so a crit can potentially still be a failure if your really bad at something or it’s very hard.

Really, P2e is better at almost everything, especially making it so you don’t need to remember tons of exceptions like D&D5e. You also aren’t supporting Hasbro, which is always a good thing.

For now, they’re better than Google. I have some bad opinions about them, but anything better than Google competing with Google is an improvement.

Well, it does have to do with privacy and security, it just doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not for them. These people (in the US) always make a point that criminals will buy guns whether it’s legal or not, but then they’ll argue they need to destroy privacy because criminals are using it. It doesn’t make sense, but it doesn’t need to because honesty or consistency aren’t important.

I think you misunderstood most of what doesn’t agree with you (purposefully or not).

Waymo is an investment.

So is public transport.

One is more effective and better for more people.

Why are we investing in Waymo?

You want to know what’s harmful to discussion? Pricks like you telling people that their opinion is irrelevant.

Your opinion about right now is irrelevant to the discussion of how things should be. It is not irrelevant in a discussion about right now, only this one. Every time public transport is discussed someone like you feels the need to say “it doesn’t work FOR ME (currently)!” OK… I’m not sure why we needed to know that. No one said it was great for everyone right now so you didn’t add anything to the discussion. It only is a distraction from actually trying to fix things for you. Sometimes this is on purpose and sometimes it isn’t. Either way, it’s harmful not helpful.

So fuck everyone who can’t afford to, or doesn’t want to, live in the city?

What the hell? Were did you pull that from my comment?

We need to work to improve public transport everywhere. Switzerland can have timely consistent trains to tiny villages in the fucking alps. We can have it here. We need to push for it though.

People saying “it doesn’t work for me right now so shut up” are actively harmful to the discussion. They’re choosing to be in a position where it doesn’t work at all (though it doesn’t work well for almost anyone in America outside of DC and NYC). I’m not saying “fuck them” I’m saying “your opinion is not relevant if it’s only complaining about doing better because it’s bad for you right now.”

Its like saying we shouldn’t go to the moon because it’s hard right now, or we shouldn’t try to develop nuclear fusion technology because it’s hard right now. I don’t care if it’s hard right now. We’re discussing what could/should be.

That’s not out of necessity. It’s a design decision. You could have one nearby with the right elected officials and public effort. You also chose where to live, with the ability to know where existing stops are. If you chose the live away from a bus stop or other public transport then that’s on you.

You’re discussing revenge, not justice.

The issue is laws must be written to cover more than just a single case. I may agree it would be fine for this case, but the law must be written to cover other future cases. Then it’s up to the discretion of judges to rule on future cases and apply the law as they see fit.

The issue is that we can’t write perfect laws that will never produce bad outcomes. We can’t trust all judges to be perfectly moral and upstanding and also perfectly accurate in their judgment. In a world with perfections, I could maybe agree with it. That’s not the world we live in.

I could see the benefit if they wanted it to work on other systems, but I doubt that’s why they chose it. Someone up high just saw it as the cool new thing and forced it onto projects, even when it didn’t make sense.

I used Vivaldi for a while. It’s still Chromium, so I would recommend against it. There’s too many good Firefox options to use anything Chromium.

It’s Spyware. It isn’t meant to stop bots.

They are parenting. This is what parenting looks like. You don’t just give them everything they want. Sure, you can also choose to give them a phone, and you can choose to lock it down. You can also choose to give them nothing. Parenting is about making those decisions for your child. It isn’t about listening to random people tell you stupid things online who act like they’re more knowledgeable about your situation.

Dude, they’ll watch porn either way probably. It’s more likely if you make it taboo that they’ll get into some weird shit. If it’s normalized then it’s not some mysterious thing they need to discover on their own. Your thought process is what leads to kids watching porn too young. They’re going to learn about it, like you did from older friends. If your parents made it normal to discuss maybe you’d be healthier.

If you have a platform, which he absolutely does, you have a responsibility for what you put out. He needs to check if it’s true. If he can’t, he needs to hire someone that will. Either he doesn’t deserve the views or he needs to be responsible for his content. He doesn’t deserve to get views with no responsibility. Everyone should be held to this standard.

He collects and edits news for media. He is a journalist.

Apologies don’t make up for being wrong in the first place. Usually they don’t have the same reach, so the mis/disinformation spreads and many people never see the correction.

It’s the same bullshit “news” companies do to sway opinion. They’ll say something wrong, then a few days later put out a correction that a small fraction of people who saw the first part see. This let’s them spread any lie they want while maintaining an image of being actual journalists to those not paying attention.

This is the difference between the ultra-wealthy of the gilded age and today. Those of the gilded age built things with their wealth for the public, so they wouldn’t turn against them. Today they think they’re untouchable. They hoard their wealth and don’t try to do anything with it.

Yet, the gilded age came to an end with regulations, because they were amassing too much wealth. They only had a small fraction of what the ultra-wealthy today have. Something needs to be done about them, and the government isn’t taking action…

There’s always more options. However, there needs to be a point where you don’t let them keep going. Sure, we could have continued to negotiate with Hitler instead of going to war. At some point you have to accept that the thing you’ve been trying to avoid is the best option left.

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, except that we should be doing everything possible to drive down their value. The less value they have the less Tesla is worth. Ideally people sell their Teslas used, driving the used cost down, making anyone looking to buy one still consider that instead of giving money to the company. We can have people who still support Tesla not giving money to them potentially.

Murder sucks, but sometimes letting them continue is worse. If they remove other options for justice then justice must be served in whatever form is left.