Why not? English is full of synonyms. It doesn’t matter whether you think it “makes sense”. Why waste the effort attacking word choice when you knew exactly what they were trying to communicate?
Linguistic prescriptivism is nonsense, you personally not liking how a word is used does not make that usage incorrect.
I felt the same when I first fought the new version but overall I find it a much more interesting fight than before.
I tend to build small decks so the exhaustion phase is the one that gets me, but you’ll usually have some cards you don’t really need in your deck. Use that phase to set up your powers and scrap any basic strikes or defends you don’t need, with less junk you’ll draw your better cards more often in other turns. Don’t be afraid to take a hit in this phase if you need to, it’s the last fight so as long as you survive you’re good. Cards that affect the next turn (eg Blur to carry over block) help if you can prepare the turn before.
The second phase just stops card draw so it’s never really a big deal for me, even if you built a draw deck at this point you should have a strong enough deck to play a turn without draws.
The final phase is pretty interesting imo, to me it seems it mostly just screws you if you’ve built around 1 cost cards. If you play a heavy hitter that’s probably all you’re doing that turn anyway, and if you’re playing a 0 cost deck it doesn’t really affect you. Just remember to play your 0 costs last that turn, they still drain your energy!
No, you’re not. It’s square packing, this is the optimal arrangement of 17 squares inside another square as far as we’re currently aware with a side length of 4.6756 inner squares. You cannot fit 5 squares in the space of 4.7 squares of the same size.
It’s also a well-known meme and this is a science meme community.
You can’t fit 25 squares of the same size in that space. If you check the top row there’s 4 squares and space for slightly less than one more square, you can’t fit a 5x5 grid there unless you have smaller squares or a bigger waffle
“Magic system” is a bit of an oxymoron imo. The problem with having hard rules for magic is that that’s not magic, that’s science. You just end up with a world with slightly different physical laws.
Technology can be interesting on its own but a deep understanding of the underlying mechanics kills the magic. A rock that lets you talk with someone over great distance is magic but if you explain it as manipulating imperceptible vibrations in the air you just have a radio.
I only skimmed this article but seems to suggest that’s not a major concern with their treatment.
Pieper emphasized that current over-the-counter NAD±precursors have been shown in animal models to raise cellular NAD+ to dangerously high levels that promote cancer. The pharmacological approach in this study, however, uses a pharmacologic agent (P7C3-A20) that enables cells to maintain their proper balance of NAD+ under conditions of otherwise overwhelming stress, without elevating NAD+ to supraphysiologic levels.
For me it’s the scale and perspective that stood out first. Both people are the same size on-screen but the one on the right is also supposed to be closer so they’re actually huge, but they also have a tiny chair. Both chairs are also pointed away from the TV which is as big as a person, but they’re also somehow not facing each other so the closer person still has to turn around. The seat on the left would have to be pushed right up against the wall but they somehow managed to fit a lamp behind it too.
It just feels very strange as someone with first-hand experience of 3d space.
BBC’s idea of non-biased reporting is if they get complaints from both sides it must be fine. On one side you get people complaining that BBC literally platforms hateful terfs who call for lynching trans people and on the other you get claims that “the BBC [failed] to cover the Darlington nurses” even though the article literally exists and tries incredibly hard to paint the nurses in a good light and doesn’t include a single quote from the person they’re harassing. That’s a complaint from both sides so BBC is unbiased.
UK and England are not synonyms. This is England behind the curve as usual and updating regulation to catch up, you already need id for energy drinks elsewhere in the UK.
You mean like all the things in the link OP posted which you scrolled past just to be an ass in the comments?
So your suggestion is instead of any attempt at regulation people should just boycott a company years after they’ve already given that company their money, despite the fact that you admit n even more ideal circumstances boycotts still do not work?
The entire premise of your comment is absurd, but let’s assume for a moment we really do live in a world where a legal process can’t be used unless it’s successfully been used for widespread change before; what other action do you suggest people should take?
Exploiting the difference in value of a commodity between communities is a valid way to make a living, traders have existed for a very long time, though if there’s little effort required the values will quickly align with each other. Turning it into an infinite money glitch by having a mint convert your raw material into coins is nonsense.
That’s all still assuming the coins are made of pure gold/silver for some reason. And assuming the mint is willing to just make money for you in spite what I’ve already said.
Edit: And that’s all if you ignore the fact alchemy, conjuration, and transfiguration exist in that universe so the entire thing is moot anyway. The angle they should have taken is that physical currency makes no sense in a world where you can just summon more, but I suppose that’s harder to turn into “I’m so much smarter than the entire world”.
If the coins are 100% gold or copper then you’re in one of two scenarios: the value of the coin is the scrap metal value, in which case swapping between gold and copper makes little difference; or, the mint buys your scrap gold and converts it in-house, pocketing the difference. A mint has no reason to convert your gold to significantly higher value coins for you, that only loses them their economic and political power in the form of currency control.
The only way it would work is if you specifically build a world where everyone else is incredibly stupid just to make yourself seem smart.
People are always praising that fanfic for some reason so I tried reading it a while back. If it’s the one I’m thinking of then hard disagree, the protagonist is a self-insert Mary Sue clearly written by a kid who thinks they’re the smartest person alive. One part that still sticks in my mind years later is their fundamental misunderstanding of how fiat currency works, it was some ridiculous get-rich-quick scheme like melting down wizard currency into pure gold to sell to non-wizard community then using that money to buy silver which they’d trade up to magic society gold coins. It was some years ago so I may be misremembering the details, but there should be a ton of issues that immediately jump out to you there.
I trudged through and got as far as the first meeting with Malfoy where the author realized they were being too friendly with each other, but since Malfoy is supposed to be a bad guy they decided he should randomly blurt out something about how he wants to rape some girl.
Maybe it’s just because I don’t have the context of other bad fanfics, but that’s a solid 0/10 from me.
Removed by mod
It says top 85%. In a room with 100 people the 85th smartest person would be in the top 85% but they’d also be in the bottom 15%.
In that case it’s the app handling code blocks poorly, you’re complaining to the wrong person.
⢰⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼
⠀⢿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣤⠴⠶⠖⠒⠛⣿⣽⡟⠛⠓⠒⠶⠶⢤⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⠴⣯⠏
⠀⠀⢿⣯⣿⠷⣶⣤⡴⣶⣶⣤⠤⠤⣤⣄⡀⠀⣀⡤⠶⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠿⣼⠿⠦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠲⢦⣄⣀⣤⣴⠒⣻⣿⣿⢻⣿⣿⣿⠋⣩⣴⠋⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣦⣼⣟⢷⣷⢹⣿⣌⣿⡟⢺⣿⠛⠻⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣤⠤⠖⠒⠒⠛⠒⠒⠒⠦⠤⣤⣀⠀⠀⢀⣤⠖⠛⢿⣇⠐⡾⣷⣿⡟⢚⣿⣷⣿⠶⠋⠁⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠛⠻⠾⢿⣾⣮⣗⣸⣿⣆⠄⠀⠙⣦⡖⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢉⣷⡟⠀⡀⢨⣽⣿⣽⣶⢿⡿⠛⠛⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⠛⠉⠙⠻⢿⣷⣶⡂⣸⡟⠓⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠞⠛⣧⣄⣿⣾⣿⡋⠉⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⣠⠾⣿⣿⣿⣿⡁⠀⠈⢳⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⠋⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣫⣶⠟⢦⡀⠀⠀⣀⠹⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡼⢿⡷⣾⠀⢀⡞⠁⠀⠹⡄⢻⣿⣿⡆⠀⠘⣿⣦⣤⣀⣀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣶⣿⡯⠀⢀⣾⣿⡿⠋⢀⡞⠀⠀⠙⢆⣀⣿⣻⣯⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡾⠷⠛⢳⡞⣻⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⢳⡀⢻⣿⣿⣦⣠⣿⡯⣷⡉⣽⠿⠿⠟⠉⣹⡯⣿⣷⣤⣾⣿⣿⠁⠀⣼⠃⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⡍⠏⠁⠉⢷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡾⠁⠀⠀⠈⡱⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢷⠈⣿⣿⣿⠟⣿⣇⡝⣮⡈⠀⠀⠀⣴⡟⠀⢿⡟⢿⣻⣿⣇⠀⣰⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⡄⠀⠀⠀⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⠇⠀⠀⠀⡼⠃⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣠⣤⣼⠿⣿⢿⠃⣰⠋⠈⠁⢻⡙⢶⣴⠟⣹⠃⠀⠀⠱⡄⢹⣿⣟⠲⢿⠤⠤⣤⣤⣀⡀⠀⠀⠸⡆⠀⠀⠈⣧⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡏⠀⠀⠀⣰⣃⣤⠖⠋⣉⡡⢆⣠⠟⠁⣼⣿⡿⢸⣇⠶⠊⠀⢸⣷⠛⠉⢳⣿⠀⠀⠐⢶⠹⡌⣿⡿⣆⠈⠱⢦⡐⠦⣄⣉⣙⣶⣄⣹⡀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⠀⠀⢰⣶⣿⣿⣿⡿⢿⣥⣶⣟⣁⣠⣞⣽⠟⡇⢸⣿⡀⣀⡴⠋⢹⡄⠀⣸⣉⣻⣦⣄⣸⣰⡇⣿⢹⣮⣷⣤⣤⣿⠿⠞⣛⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠂⠀⠀⢿⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⡟⠀⠀⠀⢹⠋⠳⢿⣿⣷⡶⠦⢭⣽⣾⣿⡟⠰⢷⣘⣿⠁⠿⠋⠉⠙⣿⠉⡿⠉⠉⠉⠏⢩⣿⢠⣟⣐⣿⣿⢷⣾⣷⣒⣩⣿⠿⠟⠉⠀⢱⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢠⡇⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠻⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⡟⣠⣾⣳⣽⣷⣦⢠⠄⣖⢹⣿⠃⠃⠠⠂⣰⣿⣿⢿⣧⣄⣻⣿⣿⣛⠟⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡄⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣸⠿⠋⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⡽⣽⣾⣿⣦⣬⠞⠏⠀⢤⣼⣿⣿⣿⢱⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠈⠙⠲⣤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⢰⣄⣤⣾⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⠶⠋⠁⠀⢀⣾⣿⢿⣿⣾⣇⢹⡏⣻⣿⠞⠀⠀⠀⠰⣿⣏⣸⡇⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠳⢦⣀⠀⠀⢸⢳⣦⡞⢸⡇⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣷⡼⣯⡽⢿⣆⣤⣞⣋⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣸⣿⣿⣧⠬⠹⣯⣬⣿⠉⠹⣄⠀⠀⠀⣰⠏⠉⣿⢤⣿⠟⠲⣾⣿⣻⣧⣤⣤⣤⡤⠤⠤⠽⠿⢦⡼⠛⣷⠛⢿⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⡄⠘⠃⠀⢿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢿⣿⣷⣄⠀⢻⣿⠏⢦⠀⠈⠐⠀⠸⡁⠀⡟⠙⣿⠟⠀⣠⣾⣿⣾⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡇⠀⠙⢀⡿⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣇⠀⠀⠀⠈⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠿⣄⠈⢿⡆⠀⠀⠀⢴⡿⠀⣠⠟⣠⣾⣿⢿⡽⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡞⠀⠀⠀⣸⠇⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⡆⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⣿⢿⣶⡈⢦⢸⡇⠀⢠⠀⢸⡇⠐⢁⣼⣿⢿⣯⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠁⠀⠀⢠⡏⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⡄⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢶⣿⣿⣳⠀⠀⡇⠀⣼⠀⢸⡇⠀⣜⣿⣹⠶⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡼⠁⠀⠀⢀⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⡄⠀⠀⠀⠈⢣⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⣯⡃⢸⡇⠀⢹⠂⠈⡇⠀⣿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠞⠀⠀⠀⢠⡞⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣽⠷⣼⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⢷⡰⢹⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠔⠁⠀⠀⠀⣠⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣴⣿⣦⣀⣠⣀⣤⣿⣧⢾⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠶⠃⠀⠀⠀⢀⡼⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⣆⣉⣷⢦⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡜⠿⣷⣿⣿⠿⣽⡿⠛⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⢊⣁⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠦⣄⣠⢿⣩⡷⡄⠈⠙⠓⠤⢤⣀⣙⣦⣈⣻⣦⣾⣁⣠⣞⣁⣀⠤⠴⠚⠋⣀⣿⣻⣧⡀⣀⡴⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠑⠦⣟⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⢿⡿⠷⣿⢿⡯⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⣿⡾⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠓⠶⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣶⡿⢸⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣠⠴⠞⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Is this better?
What you’re describing there is an etymological fallacy, a surprisingly literal one at that. By that logic the word “literal” should only refer to written text since it originated from the Latin word for letter, as in alphabet characters. Words’ meanings are defined by how they’re used, you’re complaining about how the word is being used, and you claim anyone using it doesn’t understand the meaning of the word. That is prescriptivism.