It’s always good to support the original publisher and encourage local libraries by reading a hard copy, so I could never endorse piracy, even for people who can’t get their hands on a physical copy. Even though it’s true that both libgen and annas-archive have ebook copies of this particular book (and can easily be found via google), I could never in good conscience direct anyone to such a site.

She looks great. And powerful.

bobby hill managed to make perfect cell double over in pain, so I’m pretty sure he could annihilate namek-era goku

deleted by creator

Aha, thanks! I guess that concludes this thread, as I don’t really expect to get a dev chiming in explaining why.

It’s not my preferred way of handling it but I don’t have the energy to make a fuss. I guess if I click a link that needs to be http, I’ll copy it to a browser, and if I post one I’ll remind others to do the same. Probably won’t come up often enough to care about.

At least you’ve satisfied my curiosity as to what was going on 😀

Edit: I was repeatedly told while trying to post this comment that the request timeout had expired. When the error stopped appearing, I had posted 4 copies of this message. I have deleted them but I apologize if they still spam your inbox as [deleted] or something.

Thanks for looking into this thoroughly, and for correctly noting what’s causing the situation with my specific example.

I contacted Two9A about his weird configuration before I made my original post, but have yet to get a reply from them. The specific example of xkcdsw is a separate issue unrelated to jerboa.

My main question was what is causing http links opened on lemmy through jerboa to redirect to https links - whether that is being done by the app or the instance or what. If it is the intended behavior of the jerboa app, I’m curious as to why it doesn’t leave the protocol up to the commenter.

Did you click the links before telling me that’s not how it works though? Other people are reporting the same result. I also get the same result on both my phone and desktop. Seems like two clicks would be less trouble than finding sources to back up a condescending and inaccurate response.

Here is some information supporting the fact that URLs can work that way (although the two links you quoted but did not click on from my original post already demonstrate that): https://superuser.com/questions/792202/different-website-at-https-then-at-http

Edit: bear in mind that to reproduce the behavior, you might need to type the http into your browser manually if you are using jerboa.

You need to prompt your party to roleplay as non-idiots and think through their solution step-by-step. Of course, it’s possible your party is also running an outdated model.

I see a lot of cages there - is Scootaloo your only pet that can’t fly?

“Inconvenience” would be the verb for causing an inconvenience. So in the sentence you’re going for, “inconvene” would have to be replaced with the passive “be inconvenienced” (“we’ve gotta be inconvenienced and grovel to google a bit”). I don’t believe we have a separate word for “endure an inconvenience”, although it seems like the kind of thing some languages might have a single word for. Stylistically I’d probably restructure the sentence to “we’ve gotta put up with the inconvenience” rather than just using the passive verb, but yeah.

I think you’d most often see this verb in the stock phrase “Sorry to inconvenience you”.

When you say 2.5, do you mean 3.5? 3.5 was an actual edition, still widely played (what I started on, even though 5e existed at the time). I’ve heard some people refer to late 2nd edition (I think particularly after the combat and tactics optional material) as 2.5e, but only in a very informal sense as an acknowledgment of how much one of those later supplements changed the game. Second edition is a hard sell for a modern audience, as you have to think about THAC0, to-hit tables, weird saves vs specific things, etc. It’s what Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2 run on.

3.5 is much more intuitive than second edition in terms of its core mechanics, but had a huge amount of supplementary material released for it. It’s still a detailed and crunchy system, and usually if you hear people talking about crazy character builds where they figured out how to become omnipotent at level 5 or used metamagic to wipe out a 200 mile radius with a level 4 spell, they’re probably talking about 3.5. It’s also what pathfinder is based on - you can basically play pathfinder 1 and d&d 3.5 if you’ve learned to play one of them, they’re not identical but they’re closer than any actual editions.

5 is much less crunchy than 3.5 or 2, and easier to learn, while still having good systems in place. I’ve heard it referred to as “everyone’s second favorite system”, on the basis that it’s so well-rounded (of course, in practice it’s plenty of people’s favorite or only system). I think it leans a bit more on dungeon master (referee) interpretation/judgment, which might make it less viable for a video game, but clearly Baldur’s Gate 3 works just fine using it. I’ve been curious since BG3 was announced how they went about fully mechanising parts of it, but haven’t yet gotten around to checking it out.

If you’re new to tabletop RPGs and just looking for inspiration and only looking at one system, 5 is probably your best bet - and if you run into part of it and wonder how this could translate to a computer context, you can always check what BG3 did for reference.

Actually, now that I’ve said that though, 4e is worth mentioning too. It’s usually not in the discussion for most tabletop group discussions, because of how video gamey it is, but a) that works in your favor here, and b) it does introduce some good stealable ideas, in addition to the video-gamey combat overhaul. Notably skill challenges and minion-type enemies. Another comment already gave a good discussion of 4e though, I just wanted to acknowledge that it’s a decent contender in spite of what I said about 5e being your best bet. The only reason it’s an afterthought is that it’s sort of the black sheep of the d&d family for tabletop purposes.

Edit: you know what, just since I ended up addressing every mainline numbered edition except 1, I’ll give a quick note on that. It’s basically 2 but worse. The change from 1st to 2nd was a much smaller change than all the other ones, so people basically treat them as the same thing. But 2nd edition is the finished one. It’s a bit more complicated than that and there’s a few other versions from around that time, plus modern attempts to replicate the feel of that time, but I feel like for your purposes nothing before 3.5 is likely to be worth thinking too hard about.

I’m open to follow-up questions if any part of this rambling comment needs elaboration or clarification. I intended to just clarify the 2.5 vs 3.5 thing but it kind of got away from me.

deleted by creator

Google glass wasn’t AR though, it was just a display strapped to some glasses. It didn’t do 3D or head tracking or anything.

deleted by creator

Is there a generic name for this kind of product? I figure I’ll be interested in these at some point in the future, at which point I will have long since forgotten the list but will be able to google them up given the right terminology. Other than “raspberry pi alternative” which would inevitably center the results around how they relate to the rpi rather than the products themselves.

the article anticipates and responds to that question

What is a “which way white man” moment?

But… you’re the one that brought up how long they’ve been around for.

There are more ways to be a jerk than using “offensive language”. Also, it’s never a waste to be civil, and you shouldn’t need a reward for doing so.

This stuff is generally archived and indexed elsewhere, that’s just where the main request threads are