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.

It’s a 1st level spell so you can get it through a feat or by multiclassing into cleric for one level.

Most people think they’re middle class and it’s easy to punch down, that’s really all there is to it.

When I was young I remember asking my parents “are we rich or poor?” and I was told we were middle class, it stands out because at the time I didn’t know what that meant. Looking back we were absolutely working class. We were in one of the worst parts of the city and literally just the corner was a street well known for gang violence and crime. The one time I called the cops after being attacked there when they arrived they made sure they were parked in view of security cameras and even called to have sure the cameras were on then and working. Also the only “help” they have was telling me to do it because it wasn’t worth the effort.
We were only slightly better off than everyone else living there, we actually owned our home when many of them were in council housing.

With Xanathar’s downtime rules you can make one cantrip/1st level scroll per day, double that if you’re a 10th level scribe wizard, so in three days you can make up to six Cure Wounds scrolls. Only 12.5g each for a scribe wizard too.

Fly’s graveyard?

The problem there is the claim they’re ideologically opposed to any walk outs. If that were really true then they would even platform extremists claiming for instance that everyone non-white should be classed as sub-human and not be protected by law. If someone objects to a walk out in that case there would be no question that they were grossly negligent at best.

So then assuming there is some level of competence the next question is why has the line been drawn here? Why platform people trying to strip rights from this specific marginalised group? The only reason would be that you to some degree sympathise with the hate and believe there is value in discussing whether this group deserves rights.

Neither case paints them in a good light. Unless you’re on the side trying to strip people’s rights, of course.

Sorry, but no, you’re wrong. You absolutely do not need to give voice to people trying to strip rights from others. Are you familiar with the paradox of tolerance? If you tolerate abhorrent views they will take over.

Unlikely, there’s much less money in bikes than in cars and fuel so not as much to bribe with. Even contractors building the infrastructure get more constantly repairing roads with heavy vehicles than a one-time bike lane install.

Brown nosing only gets you so far, the only way to get anything done under a corrupt government is to enrich those in charge.

You have to pay for health insurance? When I heard US residents had to get insurance through their work I assumed employers would actually provide the insurance, not just give you the chance to pay for it yourself… We have free healthcare here and my employer still for some reason provides us with free health and dental insurance.

You guys need a revolution. You’re getting charged more because that’s what you as a country allow them to do.

“Jaywalking” is mostly a US thing made up by car companies to victim-blame pedestrians when they were killed by cars so they could avoid regulation themselves. Where I am we were taught very early in school how to safely cross a road safely, and pedestrians waiting to cross or already crossing a road generally have right of way even when no signals exist. It’s only an issue in backwards countries where cars have more rights than people and cities are designed for them instead.

I cross without a signal daily because otherwise I’d have to walk all the way around the block to get to a crossing going the opposite direction from where I’d want to go then find a way to circle all the way back at other crossings. That would make leaving the house more than a little inconvenient, especially since everything I’d need is in walking distance so I rarely drive. To my knowledge I have not been killed by a car a single time.

Edit: Thanks for the downvote, doesn’t change the facts.

The very word jaywalk is an interesting—and not historically neutral—one. Originally an insult against bumptious “jays” from the country who ineptly gamboled on city sidewalks, it was taken up by a coalition of pro-automobile interests in the 1920s, notes historian Peter D. Norton in his book Fighting Traffic. “Before the American city could be physically reconstructed to accommodate automobiles, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where cars belong,” he writes. “Until then, streets were regarded as public spaces, where practices that endangered or obstructed others (including pedestrians) were disreputable. Motorists’ claim to street space was therefore fragile, subject to restrictions that threatened to negate the advantages of car ownership.” And so, where newspapers like the New York Times once condemned the “slaughter of pedestrians” by cars and defended the right to midblock crossings—and where cities like Cincinnati weighed imposing speed “governors” for cars—after a few decades, the focus of attention had shifted from marauding motorists onto the reckless “jaywalker.”

Tom Vanderbilt, Slate.com

Brine pools, it’s much saltier water which doesn’t mix with the water around it.

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.

The employer must offer a minimum of 28 days for full time workers but bank holidays and other company shutdowns can count towards that. It’s a bit more flexible that way, it means it doesn’t matter which public holidays (if any) your company observes everyone gets the same minimum time off. It also allows situations like my company where our only UK office is in Scotland but UK employees still follow English holidays instead.

It’s just adnauseum.

That never made any sense to me. Sure, if you convert a significant amount of people to spamming ad clicks you reduce the value of each click but that just means advertisers will pay less per click. It also has zero effect if they use other metrics, if you pay on conversion rate (number of signups/paying customers) click spam doesn’t matter.

There is some value in messing with data by clicking everything but if you never see ads anyway that data isn’t worth a whole lot.

Queer is a reclaimed umbrella term for any non-cis or non-hetero relationship. If two men were in a relationship they might consider themselves queer. It’s not really a word you’d ascribe to other people, it’s self-descriptive.

A man and woman in a relationship is a hetero relationship, if one or both are trans or gender non-confirming they may consider themselves queer. It’s with noting that a hetero relationship does not necessarily mean they’re straight either, bi or pan people often date the opposite gender.

I wouldn’t normally consider a non-monogamous relationship queer by default, otherwise anyone who cheats would be queer.

Since it’s a reclaimed slur the best move is to not use it at all unless the person you’re talking about has made it clear they’re comfortable being described that way by you.

No you didn’t. You only said that a company that can’t afford “25/hr” would be unable to hire people at that rate. Plus an offhand comment about how some people working full time “cannot be justified” earning a living wage, that’s the point you seemingly want to make but just stating something isn’t an explanation.

You have to account for these cases in your rules.

Why? They can’t afford an employee. They shouldn’t hire one.

Does that distinction even matter? The bullshit generator confidently generates bullshit, it doesn’t matter whether it’s making that up itself, sourcing from some dis/misinformation campaign, or just some guy behind the scenes lying to you, the end result is the same.

You can also open a suitcase by taking a knife and cutting into it. Or bursting the zip open with a pen. The lock is to deter opportunists, not determined thieves. You could travel with your luggage in a safe if you really wanted to but most people don’t think that’s with the inconvenience. Many suitcases have side pouches which people don’t bother locking at all.

The nurses have filed claims on the grounds of sexual harassment, discrimination, victimisation and breaches of the right to a private life, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

So they must be filling the claim against themselves, right? Because that’s literally describing their own behaviour? They even explained in detail how they’re harassing someone who they admit hasn’t actually done anything?

Swap the word trans for any other vulnerable group and it’s obvious this is just straight bigotry. Imagine reading this headline about someone who was gay or someone who was black.