The scientific method can be applied to more than what is distinctly objective. Just like you can probe a scientific instrument you can probe a human, ask them to rank their peers.
OP is making an ethical judgement, saying that the monkeys dying in the Neurolink studies makes them unethical. I believe the studies fundamentally had unethical elements as the monkeys couldn't even consent. But if a class taught concepts related to either of these ideas, someone designing or carrying out these studies who had learned these concepts could be seen as not having grown practically from the ethical teachings, you don't have to accept that the teachings are correct in the first place.
I hypothesize an issue with simply teaching ethical ideas is that humans are incredibly good at maintaining cognitive dissonance, or even more simply not thinking about how what they learn applies to their own behaviors and convictions.
I personally enjoy ethics as a subject, but has it been shown that studying ethics in uni actually leads to people behaving more ethically? I agree that ethics should be applied to science, but science should also be applied to ethics to determine the effective approach.
It is a significant upgrade but as someone who has taken numerous long cramped car trips I would not willingly pay for that level of comfort for a few hours.
I have a 2070 super that I use for gaming and tensor stuff. So far no problems with Arch, X11, and i3. I don't really have brand loyalty though, when I last bought a graphics card I just considered what was going to be best for my price point.
My confusion was that the meme said rolls an 18 and the title said 18 doesn't hit, which makes it sound like in one instance its referring to the roll and in the other the roll with modifiers, but I'm unfamiliar with the parlance.
Would a player ask if 18 hits when that is just the roll? I'm kinda unfamiliar with TTRPGs but I assumed the player usually kept track of and applied their modifiers, or is the DM tasked with that?
Opus Magnum. It's an optimization puzzle game. You have to assemble mechanical arms and other bits (that grab, swing, rotate, push, and pull) into contraptions that assemble resources that look like molecular diagrams. Optimization puzzles aren't unique but I felt like the pieces you build the contraptions out of in this game are pretty unique, the game is on a hex grid so rotation can play a big roll. Another interesting thing the game does is that to beat a level you simply have to accomplish a proper assembly, which in itself isn't that hard, but the game grades you on three different metrics (speed, size, cost) and gives you no overall score to tell you how much you should value each metric. In this way it is up to your preferences what you want to optimize for if anything. I had fun trying to minmax every stat separately on every level before building my "compromise" machine was not supposed to make big sacrifices in any field.
A lot of people have mentioned it but I definitely recommend Obra Dinn, haven't played a mystery game as unique and enthralling.
Something being a social construct doesn't make it inherently incorrect, subjective, or pointless. What it does mean is it is not a law of the universe, it is open to critique, reform, and dismantling. If a culture has a food taboo rooted in ethical beliefs or medical beliefs for example I feel like the words right and wrong are applicable.
The additional competition in the fish market could make fish cheaper and lead to people eating more fish. These companies don't actually care about making the environment a better place for us or other animals, the green messaging is profit driven, and just distracts from what should actually be done. The green revolution must be led by us, not corporations and technocrats.
Designing ways to farm fish may be an ecological positive when all things are weighed, but praising of ecological advancements in the fishing industry will do nothing but make people more comfortable with the idea of eating fish. That's the point of my reply, to be counter messaging against what came off as green washing.
Write the whole thing, and only then, scrap it and rewrite it. This way you actually have a good understanding of the entire implementation when you are rewriting. When I refractor while writing my draft I will slow myself down and trip over myself, I'll be way more likely to rewrite something I've already rewritten.
Sure there is a limit to the size of projects this can work for, but even for massive projects they can still be broken into decently sized chunks. I'm just advocating for not rewriting function A as soon as you finish function B.
Even if enemies got a lot stronger you'd still have numbers go up, and less superficially you'd still have significantly more options than a bunch of level 1 characters. I don't want to feel like Superman when the roleplaying situation is supposed to feel grim and insurmountable. My mood to use caution and diplomacy is really killed when I know I can destroy any encounter. I also just want a fun tactical experience in addition to the roleplaying elements, is that too much to ask?
Currently, the game on tactician, even without abusing resting, consumables, or strong multiclass is too easy in my opinion, and this is coming from someone with no prior DnD experience. I do have a little bit of Pathfinder experience as I got WotR during the Steam Summer Sale.
It's there a reason you don't use a tiling WM with no desktop environment if those are the three things you are looking for?