Source

I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.

Which brings me back to the last point in my comment.

I also hope I’m right. The two times I looked into it (right after the attack and before writing my comment) both came up with that result. Also it seems that English Heritage came out today saying there was “No visible damage”.

As I said, I’m not writing to defend the action, just pointing out that the OP article is, willfully or not, omitting certain aspects that could make JSO look a little bit better.

Edit: Formatting

but we did damage a 5000-year-old monument

As far as I could find out, they used orange cornflour that will just wash off the next time it rains. The most amount of damage anyone could seriously bring up was that it could harm/displace the lichen on the henge.

That’s not to say that I specifically condone the action, but it’s a lot less bad than this article makes it sound. It’s the same with the soup attack on one of van Gogh’s painting, which had protective glass on it. So far all the JSO actions targeting cultural/historical things (at least the ones that made it to the big news) have been done in a way that makes them sound awful at first hearing, but intentionally did not actually damage the targeted cultural/historical thing.

I think the biases of the journalist/news outlet/etc. are somewhat exposed by which parts they focus on and which they downplay or omit entirely.

Also if we give it the benefit of the doubt (and it really is a stretch to make this work lol): I could make the argument that this person meant to write: “The movie has such a terrible premise, yet it was successful enough to have two sequels. Learning how it got that success despite the material’s premise taught me these 5 things about product management:” and just worded it terribly.

We had legendary Eldrazi before if they were eldritch corruptions of things that are legendary, e.g. Brisela.

Now in this set already has two Legendary Eldrazi that don’t seem to fit this pattern. Zhulodok you could argue is an Eldrazi version of Maelstrom Wanderer (although probably not actually the original one corrupted). For this one I cannot even come up with an excuse if I try though. Deep down we all know the reason is “So that it can be your commander”.

I’d argue that with their definition of bots as “a software application that runs automated tasks over the internet” and later their definition of download bots as “Download bots are automated programs that can be used to automatically download software or mobile apps.”, automated software updates could absolutely be counted as bot activity by them.

Of course, if they count it as such, the traffic generated that way would fall into the 17.3% “good bot” traffic and not in the 30.2% “bad bot” traffic.

Looking at their report, without digging too deep into it, I also find it concerning that they seem to use “internet traffic” and “website traffic” interchangeably.

Funny because all they have to do is ask ChatGPT “Are you always right?” and it’ll answer something about it trying to always be right but indeed not always being right.

Money is not what makes it legal/illegal. But asking for money is definitely poking the hornet’s nest.

Without knowing any specifics of the TOS or the exact setup beyond what I could gather in this thread: generally speaking they could still send you a bill through email or otherwise.

After that, if you’re not paying up, they might be able to successfully get the money out of you through court regardless, depending on a few factors. What’s more likely for smaller sums is that they’ll just drop it and ban you though.

IANAL of course.

It’s organized by the European Broadcasting Union which includes a lot of countries in Northern Africa, some countries in the Caucasus region and some of the countries inbetween.

Australia also joined Eurovision though despite not being a member of the EBU…

And clearly people who are against Nazis are against socialism…

Yeah, wtf. That’s not “right to repair(verb)” it’s “right to repair(noun)”. Totally different concepts.

I think the humor is meant to be in the juxtaposition between “reference” in media contexts (e.g. “I am your father”) and “reference” in programming contexts and applying the latter context to the former one.

What does “I’m your father” mean if the movie is jaws?

I think the absurdity of that question is part of said humor. That being said, I didn’t find it funny either.

Out of curiosity, what was your original choice and why do you think it’s not a good fit anymore?

That was a response I got from ChatGPT with the following prompt:

Please write a one sentence answer someone would write on a forum in a response to the following two posts:
post 1: “You sure? If it’s another bot at the other end, yeah, but a real person, you recognize ChatGPT in 2 sentences.”
post 2: “I was going to disagree with you by using AI to generate my response, but the generated response was easily recognizable as non-human. You may be onto something lol”

It’s does indeed have an AI vibe, but I’ve seen scammers fall for more obvious pranks than this one, so I think it’d be good enough. I hope it fooled at least a minority of people for a second or made them do a double take.

Yeah, I’ve noticed that too—there’s a distinct ‘AI vibe’ that comes through in the generated responses, even if it’s subtle.

Or into a horse.

It usually happens a lot faster in video games than 3 sessions in. If it happens later in a video game, it’s usually a very short, very temporary scene of depowerment.

I had a whole paragraph typed out on my phone but didn’t like most of it. By now many other players said most of what was in there already before I had the chance to proofread and reword it. The gist of it was though: Don’t alter player characters or take their power away without at least one of those three being true:

• The player agrees beforehand and is aware it will happen.
• The player character has done something so horrendously stupid that it could’ve easily been their death so e.g. them losing a limb and now having a pegleg is them being lucky.
• It is very temporary, I’d say max 1 in-game day/1session and the player (not necessarily the character) is aware of that.

You might argue that picking that fight that would get them sent to hell would qualify as #2. But with you planning it out ahead of time it’s less them doing something dumb and more the DM guiding them to do something dumb.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt of only 3 hour sessions and ignoring the time they planned out their characters, you let them play with their characters for around 6 hours by now and it’ll probably be another hour or two until they “die”. This might sound harsh but even with you backtracking on this, seriously entertaining this idea in the first place worries me about what else you might have in store.

Regarding the “OP staff of fire” one of your players has: Did you talk to that player about it in private? I find that usually players respond well to the DM being open about something being so overpowered it warps the entire campaign to the point where you have to design every encounter around it. I’d recommend approaching them about it in private, and not at the (virtual?) table when everyone’s eager to play already.
Maybe you could just get the player on board to trade the item in for something less disruptively powerful. Essentially nullifying their magic item by being in hell where every enemy is fire-immune while everyone else still has some useful, fun magic toy feels uncool too after all.

Edit: and a player who wouldn’t agree to “Hey, your item is so strong I have to design everything around it so you don’t just steamroll everything. Can we, for example, have you meet a merchant where your character trades it for something else?” would react HORRIBLY to having it and all levels taken by force to the point where they’ll just quit.

Ah yeah. I can see how anyone could understand it that way.

And same.

Wait, that’s what I meant by “clipped”.

Now I’m curious in what other way my comment could be taken.