Must have been the wind.

The difficulty of restoring to life someone who is already alive is why such high-level magic is required.

Once when my sister and I were teenagers, she was hogging the computer and so I just picked up the chair with her in it to move her out of my way. As I walked past, her friend (whom I hadn’t touched) used her bite to make an attack of opportunity against me. It wasn’t gentle - there was no blood but there were tooth-marks.

I had mixed feelings afterwards. On the one hand, it hurt. On the other hand, a girl touched me. With her mouth. I had never been kissed at that point but being bitten was close…

(I didn’t end up marrying her.)

Also a d6 bite is nonsense. The average commoner has 4 hp and 10 strength, so one commoner would be able to kill another commoner with a single bite 50% of the time. I’m not saying a human bite can’t be lethal, but it’s not “stabbed with a shortsword” lethal. Meanwhile, even a d4 bite from a level 1, 16-str barbarian is already invariably lethal to a commoner.

(Yeah, I know, HP isn’t supposed to be realistic, etc. I just hate fun.)

Less documentation means more job security.

My issue with this is that it works well with sample code but not as well with real-world situations where maintaining a state is important. What if rider.preferences was expensive to calculate?

Note that this code will ignore a rider’s preferences if it finds a lower-rated driver before a higher-rated driver.

With that said, I often work on applications where even small improvements in performance are valuable, and that is far from universal in software development. (Generally developer time is much more expensive than CPU time.) I use C++ so I can read this like pseudocode but I’m not familiar with language features that might address my concerns.

The “wear a loincloth before growing 30 feet tall” direction?

Historical swords aren’t spiky for a reason

Yeah but people in ancient times also liked cool-looking but impractical “ceremonial” weapons. They didn’t go to war wielding them, but neither do modern people who think they look cool…

I think if you’re just Huge and you’re grappling a Gargantuan dragon, you’re going to look like a dog humping his leg. Which may be what OP wants to do, but still…

If the guy with the bow isn’t bringing the DPS then what is he even bringing?

I do find myself shopping at corner stores a little more than I used to, specifically because they have plastic bags. I wonder if they’re exempt from the law or just ignore it.

According to the article, the use of plastic for bags has actually gone up despite the ban.

I’m not sure this is going to be any more effective than the original (ineffective) ban. Maybe I’m biased because I don’t like carrying bags around so I am accumulating more and more “reusable” bags that I never reuse.

We read the ingredients on shampoo bottles and we liked it!

The US has never sent soldiers to fight for Israel during any of Israel’s previous wars, even when Israel’s continued existence was in extreme danger. Therefore I think American boots on the ground are very unlikely. Even in the case that the US military intervenes directly, that intervention will probably be limited to long-range aerial attacks.

Your argument is reasonable, although I don’t think the fact that Google is aligned with the USA and Western Europe is a coincidence. This anti-trust action is itself a demonstration of the power that the US government does have over Google, and Google knows better than to provoke the use of that power. Anti-trust law is largely a matter of the government’s opinion rather than objective rules, so Google has no effective legal defense other than keeping the government’s opinion of it favorable.

I don’t think Google could get away with deliberately manipulating elections in the way that you propose. Even if it were to tilt the outcome from one established party to another, that party would not be beholden to it. (If the party that it helped knew that it helped, then unless that party controlled Google, it would rightly consider Google a threat rather than an ally.) Furthermore, manipulating elections would have a huge risk of being revealed and facing devastating blowback. Engineers rather than the board of directors are the ones who actually make Google function and those engineers would be neither oblivious to nor loyal to some plan for domination by the board of directors.

With that said, I disagree with you primarily because I’m very risk-averse when it comes to matters like this. Right now, the “juggernaut like Google that is The Internet” is working in our favor and if we break it up then we won’t have a juggernaut working in our favor anymore. We would be better off if we were able to accomplish what you propose while retaining dominance of the internet, but IMO the reward is not worth the risk of forfeiting that dominance. Those who are losing need to take risks but those who are winning should not, and right now the USA is winning.

I don’t see how this is bootlicking. I don’t gain anything from saying it; it’s just my sincere opinion. The USA as it is now, with the tech billionaires, is very rich and very powerful, and this does benefit ordinary Americans and not just tech billionaires. My impression is that many people on Lemmy focus on the problems in the USA and lose perspective of how good it is here compared to pretty much everywhere else. There’s a reason why so many people are desperate to immigrate, and that’s because they will be better off here even as poor Americans.

I expect some people are going to think of countries like Sweden where the standard of living is claimed to be better than it is in the USA. I’m not convinced that it actually is; I’d rather live here than there. However, even if people in Sweden do enjoy a higher standard of living, it’s because they benefit from the world order established and maintained by the USA since the second world war. Their defense and their access to international trade is subsidized by the USA. (That’s one thing Trump is right about, although the way he went about saying so was foolish because it undermined the perception of NATO unity that is so important.) If they USA declines, Europe will decline with it.

And yet somehow I trust Google acting in its own self-interest to benefit Americans more than the government breaking up Google with the intent of benefiting Americans. American companies dominate the internet (outside of China), this is to America’s great advantage, and I don’t think the government should risk losing that advantage.

Children are killed even in a just war, so morality on the scale of nations is necessarily different than morality on the scale of individuals.

That’s true; I am assuming that the age distribution of dead civilians matches the overall age distribution of civilians. Maybe efforts to minimize child casualties skew the actual distribution one way, or maybe children’s greater frailty skews it the other way. I don’t know but I think that my assumption is reasonable as a rough estimate.

Let me try to explain it another way.

We know that 1/3 of the dead are children, according to the headline. We also know that children make up about half the population of Gaza. We assume that none of the combatants are children.

If a person is killed, that person is either an adult combatant, an adult civilian, or a child civilian. Since child civilians make up 1/3 of the dead and there are as many adult civilians as child civilians in Gaza, adult civilians therefore make up another 1/3 of the dead. That adds up to 2/3 of the dead being civilians. 2/3 civilian dead and 1/3 combatant dead is a 2:1 ratio of civilians to combatants killed.