At the low, low price of €5 per character? Zero chance of that happening.

Both Window and Face link to this page.

Am I missing something here? The links seem to have no relevance to the word they’re linked from; if that’s the intent, what’s even the point of making them linked from words in Ulysses? Further, out of the ~20 links you have here, there’s already a duplicate link.

So, Primer, then? Where you can’t return to a point in time before the time machine was constructed?

For example, Penny Dreadful is a fun fan-organized Magic the Gathering constructed format, played exclusively on MtG Online, wherein legality is determined by cards that were worth $0.02 or less during the previous 3-month ‘season’, making decks inherently very affordable.

It has a neat self-regulating effect since enough people play the format that if a card is particularly strong in a given season, the demand created by the format will typically drive the price up above $0.02, and cause it to be illegal in the next season.

It seems like this would create a format with only very bad cards, but card prices are a bit wild in MtGO, such that there’s actually over 14,000 legal cards currently including many rare and mythic rarity cards.

On the morality point, I’d argue that we should spend the money to rescue any person if we have the money/means, and it can feasibly happen without excessive risk to other lives, otherwise we’re assigning monetary value to human lives.

Resources are finite, though. If rescuing one person requires, say, 10 units of resources, but rescuing 10 others require only 1 unit of resources, isn’t choosing to rescue the 1 over the 10 already placing relative value on human lives, by declaring them to be 10x as valuable as the others? This is obviously operating on the assumption that we don’t have the resources to rescue everyone who needs rescuing.

This new series of Battlebots sounds pretty entertaining.

For a game built around limited formats (like drafting or sealed deck play), it makes sense / is a necessity for the format to work. It definitely sucks for constructed formats, though.

My real wonder would be if the majority of Americans would okay the amount of money it would cost to save that one man?

Depends where the money is coming from. Military budget? Absolutely. Being taken from social services and whatnot? No. The amount of money that would cost could save so many more lives if it was used for things here. Choosing to spend it on saving an astronaut rather than on, for example, feeding homeless people and distributing medication and disaster relief is like a version of the trolley problem where the trolley is already heading for the 1 person, but you have the option of switching it to the other track to kill more people if you want to. I’d have a really hard time calling that moral by any metric.

Also some absolutely great dialog / voice acting.

“You are WOEFULLY deficient in the ways of etiquette, BUT… you have a point.”

Hopefully it’ll act as a spoiler against the republican candidate, opening the door for a progressive party to also form without causing a far-right candidate to get elected.

Yeah, they’ve already placed tons of bets against themselves; own-goals are just lining their pockets.

The city should just put forth a new plan that involves taking those specific homeowners’ land via eminent domain, and using it to install new parking lots or roadways or whatever will fit to accommodate the new requirements.

I don’t think though, that for the goal of living a happy life, any harm is theoretically necessary.

Whose happiness are we talking about? Surely if one person’s happiness conflicts with someone or something that already exists, they can’t both have happiness and harmlessness. (Also, what are you considering harm? Just harm to people? What about animals? Plants? The planet as a whole?)

Modern human life is inherently very harmful to a wide range of things.

Give that the gilded age was characterized by a massive spike in wages… No. No, we aren’t. Or rather, yes, we are, but only for a very select few people. For the rest of us, we’re entering into a new depression.

The definition of DEI, Wokeness, CRT, etc. according to Trump and Republicans in general is “Anything we don’t like” or “Anything we can weaponize against ‘The Left’”.

That definitely has to cause more pollution.

This is what the article is about… They’re basically saying “The fireworks are going to cause hazardous air conditions, stay inside and keep your windows and doors shut, don’t go outside to cook because you’re subjecting yourselves to dangerous levels of pollution.”

Agree with you that fireworks just seem like an unnecessary relic from the past. Plus, in addition to the pollution concerns, they scare the shit out of animals, and can cause fires, especially the ‘backyard’ variety.

This is great, thanks for this link! Didn’t know this was a thing!

Not only that, it’s a meaningless requirement. There’s subs on Reddit that exist solely to farm karma. You make a post, everyone upvotes it, done.

That’s pretty funny. Unfortunately for them, I and probably almost everyone else don’t really care about their brand identity, so I’ll keep calling it all velcro. I’ll also keep call all tissues Kleenex, and all adhesive bandages Band-Aids, and all the others that have become synonymous with their product. That’s what they get for being too successful, I guess.