Ah well, fair enough.
Waterdeep Dragon Heist is, I believe, intended to have a conflict between the Xanathar's Thieves Guild and Zhentarim. I know when we ran it, the DM noted that we had actually managed to avoid some campaign material by resisting getting associated with either guild. But I've only seen it from a player's perspective, so I'm not sure how deep or detailed it goes.
And this infuriates me because the market for those suites is so oppressively terrible.
Like, hell, I don't even need the full suite of simulation and modeling tools that they come with. Just give me a rock-solid parametric CAD engine, a decent rendering suite tacked on to it, and I'd really love it if anyone in this market could start investigating Linux compatibility! Hell, I'd even pay for that - just not the awful licensing regimes the current offerings operate under.
Never heard of this, but it does sound interesting. Is it remotely editable - as long as the host PC is on, can you sign in and edit it from anywhere? Or is it just an editing & organizing tool on the host machine?
Disclaimer, not a lawyer, etc...
In abstract, no. "Sailing under false colors" is considered a legally permissible act of deception under the laws of war, so long as the vessel clearly identifies itself as a military vessel belonging to its proper nation of origin prior to opening fire.
In practice, obviously this is a bit of the law that doesn't have a clear answer in modern, beyond-line-of-sight warfare. It worked reasonably through World War 2 (where, indeed, several nations used disguised warships for various purposes - my favorite being the time the British disguised an explosives-laden destroyer as a German warship, then rammed it into a drydock). But what would that look like in a modern scenario? Lifting a flag, even if no one can see it? A radio broadcast?
There's also the reverse side of it: That, if a nation is using warships disguised as civilian vessels, anyone fighting them would have wider defensible grounds to more aggressively engage any suspicious or uncertain vessels. This would, undoubtedly, eventually cause civilian casualties - but such is the risk (and sometimes, intent) of using a civilian disguise.
Yes, unfortunately. Or at least seems to.
This person was an eye-opener for me in terms of how deep political groupthink and unquestioning belief can go. He's an intelligent person in a highly technical position that requires plenty of reasoning and thought, but if the right political commentator says something, it is absolute truth.
The overwhelming thing I remember is a sense of "Huh, I guess this is it."
There was a possum in the middle of a busy road, acting oddly. Walking in slow circles, pausing to stare, wandering back and forth.... just generally acting odd. I was concerned it might be rabid, and nobody else had called 911 yet, so I did. Gave them the info, they connected me with the local dispatcher, and that was that. Didn't stick around to see what happened.
When I got home I found out that Possums are almost never rabid. Poor thing had probably been hit by a car. Animal control probably would've been a better option, but when I'd called I was actually worried for anyone else who stumbled into it.
Bonus points if it's, "He's childish because he's so emotional."
And then we wonder why men are closed off emotionally.
Huh. Today I learned. Neat!
Many of your examples of "bad" moderation are more about site administration (including use of tech tools and appeals) than the degree of moderation. Like, yes - Reddit's moderation ecosystem, particularly in large subreddits, is fundamentally broken. Powermods, lack of accountability, malfunctioning digital filters, mods who lack of options for alternatives (or, where those alternatives exist, they are frequently overwhelmingly cesspools)... it's got issues. But this isn't about "more" or "less" moderation; it's about poorly-applied controls in the first place.
I'm not so sure Lemmy is so "perfect" either. I've seen plenty of moderation based on political views rather than actual misbehavior here, and conversely plenty of actual hatred and bigotry getting a pass because those in charge of a give space viewed it as aimed at the "correct" people. Likewise, while the Fediverse allegedly lets parallel communities develop, in reality it can be hard to overcome the inertia of people moving towards a popular community, unless the mods/staff there really screw up.
Okay, so what's the actual right amount in a given community?
My admittedly cop-out answer is "That depends on the community". There were some where extremely rigidly-enforced rules - particularly about quality or contents of answers or posts - helped to ensure communities retained a high degree of quality and reliability in what was posted. But others might want a more casual, relaxed space to goof around in - including in ways that others might not like - which require looser rules.
And that's really the rub: There's no absolute right answer. We can point to lots of wrong answers, but getting it right is a complex journey for each space. My personal focus is that whatever level is agreed on, it must be fairly applied for all users. You cannot be passing one user's slipup and coming down hard another. Be fair.
...and in the end, there will be people who simply cannot follow the rules, no matter how clearly they are explained.
Depends on the magnitude of what is being warned of.
"Warning, graphic gore"? Absolutely appreciated. "Contains scenes of actual combat, those with PTSD may wish to leave the room"? Yeah totally reasonable. "This book contains vivid descriptions of sexual abuse"? I can see why people would be squicked out by that.
But then we get into the absurd side of it. A film about the Holocaust, needing to warn its viewers that some contents may be distressing? Wow. You don't say. A memoir about a tragic death, needing to put a warning that... someone dies? "This politics discussion may discuss slavery, racism, and oppression"? Oh no, we have to think about upsetting things that happened!
And before someone suggests those are unrealistic hyperbole, those are all things I've seen. I don't feel those are helpful.
view more: next ›
For reference, the first generation of IPhone actually preceded the IPod Touch, but the Touch reached my friend group first. Thus my reaction when I first heard of the IPhone was more or less,
Boy do I feel like an idiot now.