If your only defence for a thing is "it's not technically against the fire code", then it's a fire hazard. Like, if I say "I technically didn't steal your watch", then you would say "give me back my watch".

You keep asking this question, we keep saying no, and then you ask it again with LESS money on offer. You don't get how haggling works, and you definitely don't get how asklemmy questions work.

OP has been in a lengthy struggle with the world over media. They swore off manga previously due to "christian morals" and the fact that Zombieland Saga contained zombies, then got back into it because of Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, and now it seems they've hit another block within the last month.

And it's not just manga. They've also had an issue with Wikipedia.

For me, it's just math. The odds of things getting better if I try may be low, but the odds if I don't are even lower. I'll take the higher odds every time.

For you, have you considered spite? Live the best life you can to prove wrong everyone who tried to stop you, and do as much good in the world as you can so those trying to do evil have to try just that little bit harder. It only takes one good hit to ruin a superior opponent's perfect game, and you can only get that hit if you keep playing.

I was afraid of that, but given some of your previous posts, I'm not all that surprised.

Since both those sites are just descriptions of things that exist, it sounds like you want an echo chamber where you don't need to acknowledge that certain things exist. I think it's better to try and figure out why you're so offended by reality.

Are you the head of a major international corporation? If not, there's nothing meaningful you can do.

I think they're under the unfortunate delusion they're being funny.

Is there an issue with these sites I'm not aware of?

"He's at the Hilton!" "Well then, let's go there!" "I dunno, it doesn't sound great. This guy only ranked it 2 stars, and apparently it really hates cops."

If you kill a PC with a recreation of the Boromir death scene, you might be able to hit all three at once!

And we played the first thing that came to our heads
Just so happened to be
The best song in the world
It was the best song in the world

They were being kind and assuming there was a miscommunication.

It's not the anger that's cowardly, it's the refusal to try. It's taking any other path, so long as you don't have to risk your own stupid pride. Have the humility to accept you might not make the right call, but the courage to actually make it for yourself.

This adventure comes from a time when modules were a toolbox. One of the most popular modules from the era had a plot of "there's a bunch of monsters in some nearby caves, and they don't all like each other". Tunnels were blocked by debris, allowing the DM to connect it to another dungeon they wanna try. You might come back to the same dungeon a second time, and the contents of the room will change. A module is a starting point, but the DM continues the story from there.

If you don't know how to prep that, then the empty room is a boon. If you do, then the empty room isn't an issue. If you don't want to prep a campaign like that, then maybe this style of module isn't for you in the first place.

I wasn't a good DM either. But then I learned. I threw encounters at the players I thought might be fun, and I missed the mark almost every single time. But my players had fun, so I don't see the problem in getting those encounters wrong. And every failure taught me so much more than every success.

If you fail, but you keep it fun and learn for the future, what have you lost? Only your pride.

But some monsters are strong against certain builds and weak against others. Some monsters are stronger in certain environment and entirely nullified by others. Some monsters are stronger given certain allies and weaker when alone.

If you could devise a system to assign monster complexity based on every scenario you can imagine that monster being part of, then either that's an astonishingly small number of scenarios or an absurdly complex calculation to force on anyone.

This is a room. After seeing dozens of rooms with monsters and furniture, you are given a room with nothing in it and told to fill it yourself. You know the general sort of thing that goes in the room, so all that's left is to decide precisely what. Everything before the room has been given to you, and everything after will be given as well. You just need to come up with one room.

You can have a paid product full of things to put into that room and not learn a damn thing about actually preparing rooms like that. You can memorise every entry on a multiplication table and still not know how to actually multiply two numbers. The most valuable teacher is experience, which is why you have to actually figure out what the gaps in the number sequence are.

So you can try. You can come up with a few monsters you think would be fun, and would fit into that room. You add a bookshelf and a table for flavour, and to make the fight a little bit more interesting. It could go well or it could go wrong, but you learn either way.

Or you can rage against the system that dared tell you to figure out a single room by yourself; dared to tell you to put your pride on the line and risk making a mistake.

The second one sounds cowardly to me.

I think it's mostly cowardice, personally. People don't want to risk putting their own choices into a game based entirely on choices, just in case they aren't as good. It's better to use someone else's decisions than risk your own pride.

Then you have ignorance. A lot of people don't know how to fill the gaps, and WotC has never bothered teaching them how. Any rules they did get are rules of thumb and aren't something to use without thought (like CR), so people complain for reason 1 again.

"You will reunite with a friend"
"The bad times will be over quickly"
"A sudden windfall will come your way"

That's bollocks. Whoever claimed that people used to draw dicks to ward off evil was talking out of their ass to make a dick pic seem classier. They were just embarrassed that their submission in an archeological journal was so similar to what they carved into their desk in school, and I'm damn certain the school desk isn't protected from evil either.

I find it funny that you directly quoted wikipedia to write that (exact wording from the paradox article, I checked), but ignored the sentence immediately before it (...or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation). Also, the linked articles at the bottom include the unexpected hanging page. Maybe read the entire wiki page before citing it?

Also, in case wikipedia suddenly isn't enough, here's an article on wolfram to back me up: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/UnexpectedHangingParadox.html

My dude. The paradox doesn't change based on whether or not the judge knows the truth, or even if the man dies.

The truth is the man was made not to expect a thing by his own logic proving he would always expect a thing. The paradox is based on his own prediction being wrong because of his prediction. In this instance, his prediction was what his emotions would be.

A horse walks into a bar, and the barman says "why the long face?" I haven't said how they remove the horse from the bar, so does that mean I didn't tell a joke? Or does horse removal not actually matter to the joke?

You have understood nothing.

Neither statement can be true OR false. If statement A is true, statement B is true, which means statement A is false. To simplify, if statement A is true, statement A is false.

"This statement is false" can be neither true nor false. That is the most basic paradox there is.

I don't think you've quite clocked it. It's not that one of the statements has to be wrong, because that's just a point in the cycle. If A is wrong, then B is right, which means A is right, which means B is wrong, which means A is wrong and the cycle begins anew.

They aren't wrong, they're contradictory. There is no logical way to parse the two statements together. That's what a paradox is.

Cannot be properly defined? "Expecting it" means "regarding it likely to happen", according to the dictionary. He regarded it as impossible to happen, so he was not expecting it. His own logic disproving the event (him being surprised) allowed the event to happen (he was surprised).

Why does the paradox suffer if he lies about the solution? The paradox has already played out, and anything after that is just set dressing.

Just off the top of my head, maybe the judge has a camera set to gauge his reaction to the knock on the door? Or maybe he goes into denial and tries to explain his logic, thus proving the paradox? Or maybe the judge doesn't actually care as much as he said, but trusts the logic to hold out and make for a funny story?

The Unexpected Hanging Paradox: A man is sentenced to death, but the judge decides to have a little fun with it. The man will be killed at noon on a day of the judge's choosing in the next week, from Monday to Friday. The only stipulation is that the man will not expect it when he's called to be killed.

The man does some quick logic in his head. If Friday is the last day he could be killed, then if he makes it to Friday without dying, he knows he must die on that day. And since that wouldn't be a surprise, he cannot be killed on Friday.

He then extends the logic. Since he can't be killed on Friday, the last day he can be killed is on Thursday. Thus, all the prior logic regarding Friday applies, and he cannot be killed on Thursday either. This then extends to Wednesday, then Tuesday, and then Monday. At the end, he grins with the knowledge that, through logic, he knows he cannot be killed on any of the days, and will therefore not be killed.

Therefore, the man is astonished when he's called to be killed on Wednesday.

There are 7.9 billion people in the world. Only 5.4 billion have any level of internet access. This includes people living in China where Facebook is banned. 3 billion is such a high percentage of all possible facebook users that I have to assume the numbers aren't all that accurate. Maybe "active" just means they haven't deactivated their account? Or maybe they consider bots to be people?

I didn't say "make", I said "film". You don't film the actors until the script, sets and costumes are ready, and you can't edit the movie until after you've finished filming.

According to wikipedia, filming for Avengers Endgame started in August 2017 and finished in January 2018, with reshoots later that year. This was a big Marvel production with a ton of big-name actors doing complex action scenes, so I'm pretty sure this is on the high end of how much filming would need to be done.

Aged naturally... to play both older and younger... within a single film...

Given how most films only take a few months to film at most, I don't think natural aging will have enough impact on a character to have a distinct "younger and older". If the film took years to make, then parts would seem really low quality compared to other parts. If the character was only a few weeks older, you wouldn't notice the difference between the accurate age and the reshoots.

How the fuck can wikipedia be clickbait? They don't benefit from the number of clicks.

I believe it was Running who stated "If I have seen further, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Referring, of course, to the works of noted giant Thrynn Walk.

Is Jerry Seinfeld alive? According to google, yes.

I'm confused by the college of eloquence being in a system that is clearly not D&D, since an int of 2 would make you non-sentient and a con of 1 would be dead.

Sidenote: Jesus christ, I blocked one guy and 43 comments vanished.

In a single round of combat, a wizard can use a spell to rain fire and bring a max health fighter down to 1 hp.

In comparison, in a single round of combat, a fighter can swing their sword four times and bring a max health wizard down to 1 hp.

So they're both as good as each other in a hypothetical 1v1 combat scenario which is unlikely to ever come up during an actual game. Bravo. Can we stop having this argument? It's been 4 months since this exact meme was posted.

Oh, you mean those things where you hold on and they keep you afloat? Because he was holding on, and the icy cold waters put him to sleep. Your solution is what killed him in the movie.

The entire point of the scene is to show the sacrifice of those who died to ensure the survival of those who lived. If you try to think up a solution, you have missed the point.

I like contactless payment, but these contactless tits aren't for me.

Do you remember those days when you'd go abroad and have to exchange your tits for the local tits? It was nice trying to collect them.

A good example is Titanic where people keep saying Jack could fit on the door, despite the film showing him trying to get onto the door and almost capsizing it, so he leaves it alone to ensure Rose's safety.

I don't have trust issues, and I think that might actually be worse. Like, if that happened now, I'd only shirk at going in twice, but I'd still go in once.

It's apparently a reference to fattening a pig before the slaughter. Basically, they trick you into feeding their crypto-pig before running off with all the pork.

When I was playing that game as a youngling, someone asked me to help get some wine from a cult temple. I did, which made the door slam shut and every cultist in the room attack me. I just barely made it out of there alive.

Then they told me to go get a second one. Yeah, they didn't need wine, they wanted me to die to a trap so they could take my stuff without killing me.

I'm embarrassed to say I actually went to get that second wine.

Granted. It turns out a lot of politicians were so obviously lying about their opinions that the people voting for them had figured out their real opinions. The lie only existed to give the voters justification in casual conversation. In fact, telling the truth makes the politician MORE powerful because of an idea of "sticking it to power".

This does not lead to truth in politics, because newsreaders are not politicians. They can simply spout propaganda on behalf of the politicians they support, and the politicians can say the technically true "I support this newscaster" statement to make the people believe the lies all over again.

What it does lead to is a lot of politicians putting on a facade of goodness to reveal their selfish intentions. Much of their facade involved voting for policies that make the world a better place, and that was why you supported them yourself. With the facade gone, they see no point in voting for anything but their own selfish interests.

With no politicians you can trust anymore, you vote for the only person on the ballot who still claims to have your interests in mind. If they're on the ballot sheet, you must be able to take them at their word, right? Politicians can't lie anymore, right?

Trump was not a politician.