My wife found an Emerald ring she really liked from more of a boutique style jewelry store owned by a young woman. It had the vibe of a brick-and-mortar Etsy store. We went to a few old school jewelers and hated the experience. It felt like we were being scammed by some slimy diamond dealer.

I semi-regularly dream that I'm playing a video game, but it usually is a more like a hybrid between controlling a video game character, and being the actual character.

It usually manifests itself as some alternate reality version of WoW (because I've played that more than any other game, I assume). Sometimes I even think to myself, "it's amazing that I've never seen this part of WoW before!"

Maybe a stupid question, but does it count if he wasn't there for the game? A player wouldn't get credit for a win if they didn't play, so should the manager get credit for the win if he wasn't managing the game?

You're being obtuse about the definition of "go to war". If they invade your country and you fight back you're still going to war.

This is slightly extreme. Go tell Europeans in the late 30s and early 40s that there's no justification for going to war against Germany. There are always exceptions.

Sports subs are the #1 reason I still occasionally check in on Reddit. I've removed every non-sports sub. Sports subs can also be sorta "reddity", but it's still my favorite place for news and discussion.

It forces replayability if you're the kind of person who needs to do everything.

It's absolutely enjoyable. The choices feel like they have a lot of weight. At the end of the day it's just a video game, so you just have to pick a choice and see what happens. You can also save scum if you're super unhappy with an outcome, but I try to avoid that.

There are absolutely irreparable consequences to your actions in this game. You have to "plan ahead" in the sense that you have to be sure what path you want to go down because other paths will become closed or non-existent. It also is sometimes not obvious which path makes the most sense to take, which is by design.

Without trying to spoil anything, I made a mistake with one of my characters which caused them to permanently leave the group and I can't get them back.

I have similar nightsweat problems, so I did something close to this once: https://www.wikihow.com/Clean-a-Bed-with-Baking-Soda

If you Google "clean mattress with baking soda" you'll find a bunch of similar recipes. Lots suggest using essential oils, which I didn't use.

The results were decent when I did it. Definitely de-funkified the mattress a bit, and removed some of the stains. It was hardly like new, but it was definitely better than before.

When six newbies struggle to figure it out, then it isn't well-defined. Or at the very least isn't well structured to find the definition quickly. I will die on this hill.

My friends and I started playing DnD during COVID. We're all at least normal intelligence, college educated people (I even work in a job where I regularly research federal regulations, so I'm used to navigating complex rules). Our biggest complaint was how obtuse and difficult to pin down some of the rules in this game are.

Six of us spent a half hour trying to figure out how darkvision works, and the answers we found online didn't seem to match up with what we were reading in the handbook. You would find something mentioning darkvision, but it wouldn't explain how it worked. Then somewhere else would say something different about darkvision. It seemed like you needed to go to multiple different sections of the handbook to piece everything together. We encountered multiple instances of this.

Our one friend defended it all saying it's deliberately obtuse to allow for DM flexibility, but most of us disagree with that approach. The rules should be explicitly stated, and then a caveat added that all rules are flexible if the DM wants them to be. There should not be a debatable way to play the game, as far as official rules are concerned. How you bend the rules is entirely up to you.

It's an ill wind that doesn't blow somebody good.

I think happiness is a misunderstood concept. It's something that many people take for granted when they're young, but as they get older it seems to wane and comes with a lot more caveats. Your baseline used to be happy, but now your baseline is more neutral. You spend 80% of your time being neither happy nor sad. The idea of being happy all the time is sort of a farce, and I tend to assume people who claim to be are either lying or stupid.

Happiness is more about taking a step back from your life and viewing it all in one big picture. If you like what you see, then you can consider yourself happy, even if that doesn't mean you're smiling about it right this moment.

My wife and I gave up after two episodes. Neither of us have read the books or played the games. We just think the show sucks.

I feel like the goalkeeping has taken a pretty massive step up this year. It's been one of the weakest parts of the women's game, but I've seen some really impressive performances.

I really should give it a try. I liked almost everything else about S1.

I really liked The OA, but I thought the end of season 1 was the absolute worst, most cringe-inducing nonsense I've ever seen in my life. I'm not even being hyperbolic. It almost completely ruined what I thought was a great show before that. Haven't given season 2 a chance because of it.

This is a microcosm of how employment works in the world at large.

You aren't paid based upon how difficult your job is, nor are you paid strictly based on how much value you add. You're paid based on a function of value added, AND how replaceable you are. Essentially supply vs demand. If your job is hard and you add a ton of value, but you're easily replaceable, then you won't make much money. There's just too much supply. It doesn't matter that RBs are important if you can just throw a rock and hit someone who can fill the role.

Likewise if you're difficult to replace, but don't add a ton of value you also won't make a lot of money. My best guess for an example of this would be long snappers.

I think this is terrible advice for most people. You only need to spend like an hour in the airport to avoid missing a flight. Most people don't fly often enough to get much actual gain from pushing this boundary. The only person I knew who would push the envelope like this was someone who flew every week for work. That makes sense to me, because you're saving two hours every week for years. If you're only flying a few times a year just pack a book and ensure you make your flight on time.

That's sort of exactly the point. People believe it to be true, and it's sort of impossible to prove them wrong. Nature vs Nurture still isn't proven either way, regardless of how strongly you feel one way or the other.

The simple fact that someone believes it's possible to "make people gay", almost necessarily leads to them believing there are people out there actively doing it.