Your point specifically doesn’t stand. Not the one you made in your comment. You’re getting incredibly upset over being corrected when the correction was genuinely well meant and important to the discussion at hand. I’m sorry that this is something that angers you, but your hurt feelings don’t change the fact that what I’m bringing up isn’t pedantry but a correction on a misconception which is being propagated for political gain.

I know what events you’re referencing and misrepresenting, yes.

The correction was entirely on point because the framing of this being an example of rampant inflation and thus a major governmental failure is misinformation propagated by the Republican party.

While it is certainly imaginable that the erratic pricing of eggs in particular could have been handled better by the Democratic government, it’s entirely false to present it as just one example of a wide reaching problem as the price increase in this case is unique to this product. Inflation has been happening and is comparatively high, putting a lot of pressure on lower income households, but it is not effectively apocalyptic as it is presented here.

Your response is completely unwarranted as in no way was I even attacking or talking down to you.

Inflation describes the decrease of the value of your money. When a currency is affected by inflation, all prices go up as you require more of that money to equal the same worth of goods.

If eggs shot up to a price of 8 or so bucks and then went down to 2.69, you weren’t being affected by inflation as it is unheard of for a currency to suffer such insane inflation and then immediately recover from it.

What happened in your case would have been a large shift in supply and demand, possibly brought on by the mentioned problems in the egg production, or price gouging by whoever was selling these. Possibly also just a mix of those.

I see many comments discrediting this somehow, but I want to put my two cents in as someone who does work with sensor based AI assisted processing in real time and safety reliant environments.

Just because a concept can be thought of that sounds reasonable and maybe even works in simple tests, that doesn’t mean that it’s actually useful for the real use case. Many typical approaches to creating models that can solve computer vision tasks such as this can result in unstable results and no system that has a considerable false positive rate would be tolerated by any airliner. This isn’t even to speak of the false negative rate which might then still be rather high, which still leaves the system useless.

Naturally it’s not to say that no such system could be created, but they can’t be just whipped out like some people here claim. If, as people here are already assuming, the problem happened because someone climbed onto the conveyor belt and was carried in, then this type of problem is sufficiently unthinkably rare that most companies didn’t think about it much either.

Clearly greater security is necessary, but people are being unreasonable with how trivial they portray the solution as being.

Maybe not news in the sense that it’s a new development (though the title implies it is a deterioration), but still very much worthy of reporting. Just because something is typical doesn’t mean it is unremarkable.

It’s not my job to do either of those things. It may have been in your interest to make a comprehensible point though.

I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t search through your comment history to find your own arguments for you. Consider editing the actual top level comment if you want to use these arguments without retyping them.

It’s a bit harsh to put such words in their mouth. They said their sympathies lie elsewhere, not that he deserved it.

You seem to be implying that fusion is a gimmick of an idea by comparing it to Hyperloop which was nothing but that.

Fusion is a mechanism which has been providing humanity with energy from the first moments in the form of the sun. It’s a well known functional form of energy generation. The struggle isn’t whether or not it could possibly work, but just to make it practical enough to make it work.

This isn’t even necessarily about a single company promising that they have an idea that may work, this is an example of it functioning in some capacity.

Your comparison is simply arbitrary.

“Taiwan never has been a sovereign state”

I guess the Republic of China never existed?

Taiwan isn’t exactly a rogue province. It’s the holdover of the prior government of China that lost the revolutionary war and retreated there.

It doesn’t entirely invalidate the point, but it has to be said that the situation is markedly different from the one with Texas.

It’s more like if Texas overthrew the US government in a violent rebellion and the UK worked to support the holdover of the old US government that retreated to Puerto Rico.

Nothing that happened since has invalidated truly the right of Taiwan to remain a sovereign state. It’s in no sense a rogue province.

You should contextualise such claims.

Historical accuracy is not racism. Choosing to identify yourself based on the racist actions in your history is.

To drive it to the extreme, it would be like saying that Germany depicting Jews being gassed on their new flag isn’t racist, just historically accurate.

Something about that airship idea tickles my memories of playing Final Fantasy, so I can’t say no to that. It’s also something that would certainly garner massive favour, while not making the characters feel overly powerful beyond reason. Especially once the airship has plenty of limitations for being a prototype it’s fully under DM control and still feels incredibly cool, I imagine.

Thanks for the idea, I think it’s really shaping up.

That is an excellent idea. Together with the other stuff I read here, I think I know what to go for. I love the idea of the character trying to garner favour with the idol only to end up being ripped off when he is on the path to his grand goal. Thanks a lot for the idea!

I agree with your statements, I’ve made the mistake of pre planning too much before.

What concerns me more is having a plan on how to set his character up for that journey of creating such an item. When they say legendary, they mean an item that would become renowned for having been created, maybe not necessarily truly legendary. The characters primary motivation is to prove themselves the equal of their long-standing idol artificer.

I guess what bothers me is the fact that I have a thorough idea for engaging character quests for all the other players. I have thought of personal storylines that each player gets to explore that will lead their character along some plot line based on their backstory. It’s only the artificer that I can’t think of something overly compelling for.

My first leveled Tank was Gunbreaker, my first leveled DPS was Mechanist and I am myself now working on Sage to fill out my “shoot guns at it to solve your problem” Trifecta.

Neither have they the choice of what format others use. The point here was that the apps are to blame for not supporting the format, not the format for not being supported. It’s a common format nowadays.

I especially like the idea of a form-changing enemy. That is already giving me ideas to create interesting enemies that can effectively just repurpose existing statblocks into this type of enemy. Maybe an enemy that can change quite liberally like with a reaction and has different kinds of immunities might be quite interesting.

They weren’t claiming that people had a habit for paying taxes in general but that because nothing else is a habit they lack the energy to do the things that other people already consider draining when they had to spend so much on things that come naturally and in a way for free to others.

I would argue that brushing your teeth certainly seems to be habitual for most people. It’s something they’d do if they went through the bathroom routine in the morning while effectively still asleep. This person is saying that if they don’t effectively stand in the bathroom and look at the brush and decide “I will now brush my teeth.” they won’t do it, where someone else had grabbed the brush while thinking about what they need to get done later in the day.

Depression on the other hand would more likely manifest in a disregard for the necessity of the activity. This person says they do brush their teeth, they want to brush their teeth and they are ready to spend their existing energy on it.

A depressed person often would not be convinced that it matters, nor that they could even make themselves do it if they felt like they had to. Though naturally depression is expressed in many ways, as is any type of neurodivergence. It’s hard to put strong labels on these things. Nonetheless it seems sensible to differentiate on these things as most neurodivergence is simply a set of untypical phenomena and behaviour that have collected up enough to start becoming notable.

A person considered completely normal could suffer from the same but simply manage well enough for it to never stick out. No one is entirely normal.