My current campaign has a character whose parents still live in the town where the adventure is largely based. A lot of effort is spent convincing other townsfolk not to tell his mother what he's been up to. It's fantastic.
I don't know about that. When I used to ride a bike to work near a busy truck route, I felt like the truck drivers were the most courteous and conscious of keeping a safe distance. Normal car drivers were a mixed bag: usually not a problem, but not reliable enough to trust. But bus drivers... it felt like bus drivers were actively pissed off by the existence of cyclists.
Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom were both great games, with good story (if a little cutesy, but it’s aimed at being family friendly), not even really any allusion to sex.
A bit yes and no with TOTK I think.
::: spoiler spoiler
You are right that TOTK doesn't have any explicit sex or romance. But the way the introductory cut scenes for Purah and Riju deliberately start from their legs and pan up over their bodies doesn't really have a purpose other than to sexualise them and announce "look how hot we've made these characters for you."
:::
The barbarian isn't going to just say "I roll athletics" without explaining what they are trying to achieve. Same for persuasion. "I try to convince the mayor we are experienced enough adventurers to assist" is enough to let the GM know what the intention is and give context for the NPC's possible reponse.
There will always be exceptions, for example for disabilities or medical conditions. Most of those exceptions will be more accessible to wealthy or influential families that can afford to pay off doctors than poorer families.
Even if the Uluru Statement was 200 pages long and called for white slavery, it would still be misleading for Sky News to imply it has any relevance to what is actually being voted on in the Voice referendum. The wording of the proposed constitutional amendment is only about 4 paragraphs long, and has already
been set by Parliament.
The 25% casual loading is calculated to take in notice of termination and redundancy pay too. Lots of people resign and fewer are made redundant, so wouldn't get notice or redundancy pay anyway. That means in most circumstances, employees are better off in a pure money sense as casuals.
The big downside is if things are quiet at work you aren't guaranteed any hours. As you mention, that also creates a hurdle when applying for loans.
Unfortunately the reference to full-time is sloppy reporting from the Guardian. The quotes from the Minister only mention converting to 'permanent' work
Currently casuals working regular part-time hours are supposed to be offered permanent part-time work. I doubt they'll be changing that.
What would you expect the union to do? One of the union's roles is to protect the health and safety of its members. If taking the books off the shelves stops the abuse, I suspect they would support the move.
American Officeworks