Sounds like London is a comparatively nice place to live in WoD land. Huh. Pity it takes a surveillance state to get it.

Poe’s Law.

That was actually the original inspiration for the character. To take the nazi ideal being, and say, “what if he existed, but was nothing like you.”

All those “subversions” of Superman out there, including Snyder’s interpretation? Those aren’t subversions of Superman as much as simply going back to the original concept that Superman’s creators were deliberately trying to subvert. “What if the ultimate powerful person DIDN’T abuse his power, and was actually a good person?”

The scuttlebutt is that buffalo as a verb was only attested very briefly in upstate New York and the Midwest for a brief period of time in the early 1900s. It never spread nationally, and definitely not internationally.

However, checking Google ngrams shows that “he buffaloed” and “was buffaloed”, (to ensure it’s being used idiomatically as a verb and not just in the famous example sentence) emerged in 1900, peaked in the 1950s, but has sustained small but constant use in published print since then. I was actually expecting the ngram to rapidly drop off and never recover… shocked to see that some people still use it as a real phrase.

Not that I’ve heard of. Now, whether Homo sapiens idaltu is a real separate species from Homo sapiens sapiens is disputed, so there’s a question as to whether the second sapiens actually differentiates us from anything… but I haven’t seen any signs of any consensus against calling ourselves Homo sapiens sapiens to date.

In D&D, the standard assumption is that elves mature just as fast as humans, but they are culturally treated as children until around hundred or just a bit higher. But I’ve started developing a campaign setting where elves really are the equivalent of kids until that age, and all the implications of that. One of which is that, if humans attended school alongside elven kids, they’re going to lose their reputation of mystique and wisdom— they’re going to be viewed as kinda slow and dimwitted, as the humans graduate through the grades and the elevens get held back a decade or so.

Beavers fuck up habitats and ecosystems about as much as humans used to before factories, which accelerated what we could fuck up. Beavers wreck shit up. Sometimes elephants do too, for that matter. And let’s be clear, the modifications these animals cause can have overall eventual benefits for an ecosystem, but they change the ecosystem extensively over a huge area, and any benefits you can ascribe to their actions could as easily be applied to human ecosystem modification too. “Oh yeah, the forest is completely gone, but now there’s new homes for different kinds of creatures that couldn’t live there before.” This sentence applies 100% to elephants, beavers, and yes, humans.

Some animals change their environment. We are one of them. Our tool use and brains allow us to do so on a pretty wide scale, but the destruction the elephants caused was pretty darn huge too. Humans also have the capacity to do with intention towards actively helping an ecosystem… elephants don’t have the ability for that kind of intentionality.

Of course, humans are also fully capable of acting without that intentionality too. It is pure coincidence that new ecosystems appear in the wake of elephant or beaver devastation— they weren’t actively trying to help other animals, they just wanted what they wanted. Our destruction can also have unintentional new ecosystems arise in our wake— the problem is that often we don’t LIKE the new ecosystems (bacteria and viruses, for example), and we often DO LIKE the stuff we destroyed.

But it’s not really different from what animals do. Because we aren’t separate from nature, we are nature. If we are bad, nature is bad. If nature is good, we are good. But this kind of binary thinking is too simplistic, life is more complicated than that, and we as humans have an ability to make value judgements and moral distinctions in a way that most animals cannot. We shouldn’t use that power in such a reductive way.

Not to me. Sounds more like someone who’s been in a lot of social media arguments, has a vague understanding of the counter arguments, and is trying to solidify their answer to it.

Can piefed be accessed through voyager? I heard people talking about it as a good way to avoid all the tankies, but I couldn’t find it on the instance search within voyager.

I remember roughly a decade ago I worked out that a gold was equivalent in purchasing power to somewhere on the order of $100, and $100 was a nice round number that’s easy to use to get a ballpark feel for what something is worth, so I pretty much always use that. I’m guessing inflation and/or doomsday preppers (or political culture) has significantly raised the price of gold since then. Inflation too.

Three-cue and whole word memorization are scams, yes. Possibly not maliciously intended scams, but they’re counterproductive anyway. Phonics is not.

If you were taught using “whole word” or “three-cueing” strategies (I’m guessing you were given the three cue method, as that’s been pushed in the past two decades pretty hard, to the detriment of everyone, but whole word isn’t great either) you’re more likely to have internalized inefficient, error-prone, and mentally tiring reading habits. Obviously you can still read, but you will find it more difficult and less enjoyable, adding an extra layer of stress when learning other things that is actually unnecessary.

It’s possible you learned/figured out phonics on your own from exposure. Some are able to do this— humans are the best pattern finding machines in the universe at the moment— in which case these problems won’t present themselves. However, being taught wrong can create issues such as guessing words based on context (or images/diagram presented with the text), skimming for clues instead of deciphering the word itself, memorizing entire words instead of pieces of them that contain sounds and meaning.

These strategies all “work”… they enable you to read, but they create extra problems when you encounter new, uncommon, or just unfamiliar words (necessary when learning new concepts), when the context is unclear (such as when picking up a new novel to read, or analyzing technical or scientific papers without illustrations), or when you need to read and comprehend things quickly and under timed pressure (such as when there are work deadlines, or… you know, standardized tests).

You can read, sure, but you probably can’t read well, unless you’ve managed to figure out patterns and strategies that weren’t expressly taught to you on your own.

Here’s an article that may lay things out for you clearly. It says much of what I’ve said here, but with more detail and probably better prose. It’s a persuasive piece, but it is backed by the current scientific research and understanding we have. At a Loss for Words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers

Teacher here. (EFL teacher, but phonics are necessary in EFL as well as L1 English classes)

The opposite. Phonics is the only thing that actually works, and any and all attempts to move away from phonics creates long term systemic issues in reading.

The issue is that phonics are hard to learn at first, but the payoff for the early effort is nigh-effortless reading in the future, enabling education to continue and making literally all future self-improvement better.

Alternatives to phonics focus on the “it’s really hard at first” thing. You know, if we skipped phonics and just memorized word shapes, we’d be able to get our 1st and 2nd grade test scores up… and that means more federal funding! And it works!!!

What do you mean our 3rd grade test scores are dropping… I guess we just need to pile on MORE HOMEWORK!!! And 4th grade scores are dropping too? And 5th? And middle schoolers are struggling? And high schoolers don’t read much either, and their writing is nigh-incomprehensible? Ehh… well, must be the kids fault, am I right guys?

Phonics teaches the rules that make English work. It gives you the ability to read and write as well as you can speak, which comes naturally. It gives you the method to learn new words in seconds or at worst minutes, instead of days or weeks. You can’t tell me that isn’t powerful.

No, your farts are not what propel your poop. Squeezing and relaxing of the tube propels the poop, which is not a pneumatic process.

My understanding is that infidelity is very nearly binary in its commonality.

There are groups of people for whom infidelity is normal, it is the norm. They believe that everyone cheats, and in their experience everyone does, because they are cheaters and are friends with cheaters. They believe that fidelity is impossible, and claims to the contrary is just social posturing

Then you have groups of people for whom infidelity is basically unthinkable. That it is the greatest breach of trust possible. It is not just not normal, it is non-existent— you don’t cheat, your partner doesn’t cheat, your friends don’t cheat, no one you know cheats. If someone you know cheats, or someone known by someone you know cheats, it is legitimately horrifying: this is not merely social posturing, it is literally shocking to you, because in your world, cheating simply does not happen. It is horrible.

Cheaters think everyone cheats. Non-cheaters believe no one cheats, or only horrible people cheat. These two groups tend to self sort themselves into groups. Bad things happen when the two groups intermingle, in fact.

What’s also a tragedy is when someone who would naturally be in the non-cheating group ends up, mistakenly, in a cheating group. They will begin to feel like everyone ELSE in the world cheats, while they themselves never would. They keep getting hurt, they keep getting betrayed, and they don’t understand why. They need a better friend group… and let me be clear: non-cheating groups ABSOLUTELY EXIST. Those groups simply don’t interact with cheating groups— they basically don’t even know that the cheating groups exist, and would be horrified to find out. So if you’re caught up in a cheating social circle, getting out is really hard! You need to find people who have literally nothing in common with the people you already know!

It kinda sucks. I don’t know a solution.

Agreed. The “it’s not really food” idea came from labeling requirements that to be labeled cheese, it needs a certain percentage of its ingredients to be cheese. Once upon a time, American cheese slices were made from the offcuts of cheddar, but the popularity of American cheese means that there literally aren’t enough offcuts to be economical… you’d have to make cheddar just to turn it into American cheese.

But guess what cheddar is made from? Milk. Turns out, when making American cheese, it’s possible to skip the aging and culturing process and simply go straight from milk into the cheese slice we know, with less than the mandated amount of aged cheddar added. That means they had to write something like cheese product instead of calling it cheese directly.

But it is still food! In fact, it’s still American cheese… skipping a step in the recipe to get a very similar if not identical result doesn’t change what it is! It uses the same raw ingredients, for crying out loud! It’s still the same stuff!

As a DM, I’m not asking you to act, I’m not asking you to engage in improvisational theater, I’m asking your approach. I mean, I’m a “fade to black” DM when it comes to spicy roleplay, so I probably wouldn’t for the named situation in this meme, but let’s say it’s somehow relevant beyond the laughs of “horny bard”. Are you being cheesy and trying to get the bartender to laugh? Are you trying to be suave? Are you just socially indicating interest and letting the bartender decide what they think of that? These matter for what kind of reaction will come about from either a success or a failure on the roll, and it’s not my job as a DM to decide for you what approach is best for the situation… determining the approahh ch is the game. You can tell me your approach via ACTING! or just by describing it, but I really need to know what your character is doing.

But really, don’t worry about your own charisma. You don’t need to be suave or charming if your character is. I just need to know what they’re trying to do, not see you do it.

Soap is extremely moldable and formable, which makes it reformable too. All the scraps can EASILY be reused without loss of quality. You can do the same at home— shred the soap ob a cheese grater or food processor, melt it in a cooking pot on the stove, pour it into the mold of your choice, pull it out and you have soap of the same quality as before in a new shape.

I’ve had a concept I’ve wanted to try for a little while for a special type of wild mage, but I’m not 100% sure how to implement it. Instead of wild magic just being a completely random chart of spell effects with no control over what you get, the spell caster would declare what he wants to end result to be… and the DM, or some more limited random mechanism, would choose what spell (of the appropriate spell slot level) might get them closer to that result. If they want to get past an ogre guarding a treasure, they might cast a fireball, or maybe invisibility, or maybe some sort of teleport effect… they all advance towards the stated goal, but without the caster’s control of how, leading to the wild magic feel without the insanity and campaign crushing randomness other wild magic can bring. And there’s still room for some silly danger, as maybe the fighter is next to the ogre when the wild magic chooses fireball.

Remember when windows said 10 would be the last version of windows, and they’d just keep sending updates from then on? That lie didn’t last long…

And they’re EoLing it this coming October! Can’t they wait until 12 at least to do that? I can’t remember the last time the end of life came before two versions had gone by. Wtf!