Replace 'guy' with 'girl' in that sentence and everything still checks out.
Mnemnosyne
joined 2 years ago
Don't discount the generative AI either!
Language generating AI like LLMs: Though we're in early stages yet and they don't really work for communication, these are going to be the foundation on which AI learns to talk and communicate information to people. Right now they just spit out correct-sounding responses, but eventually the trick to using that language generation to actually communicate will be resolved.
Image/video/music generating AI: How difficult it is right now, for the average person to illustrate an idea or visual concept they have! But already these image generating AI are making such illustration available to the common person. As they advance further and adjusting their output based on natural conversational language becomes more effective, this will only get better. A picture paints a thousand words...and now the inverse will also be true, as anyone will be able to create a picture with sufficient description. And the same applies to video and music.
That said I love your managing production point. It's something I e been thinking too - centrally planned economies have always had serious issues, but if with predictive AI we can overcome the problems by accurately predicting future need, the problems with them may be solvable, and we can then take advantage of the inherent efficiency in such a planned system.
This point neither supports nor erodes the logic of ownership of territory or land; it merely points out that it has a very long history. Many things have a long history, some of which have consistent reason and logic behind them, and some which do not.
It is true that once production of an item becomes a greater task than simply the work of one person, the ownership of it can be considered more complex, but my point was that at least something created by people makes sense to be owned by its creator.
Only in frictionless spherical cow in a vacuum territory - that is to say in theory in unachievable ideal conditions. In the real world the market is wildly distorted and people are forced by a variety of external pressures to participate even if they don't believe they are being offered what they are worth.
Private ownership of things made by people is perfectly reasonable; the person who made the thing should own it and be able to sell or transfer it as desired. So a rock you found isn't made by people, so yeah, but a painting, or a chair, etc, was.
It's land that wasn't made by people where private ownership gets really ridiculous.
If you want to challenge actual data and claim it's not correct, you need data to show that. If you don't have data to challenge that claim but you're still suspicious, you can say we need more, better data and we should make efforts to gather it.
But simply asserting that the data is wrong with nothing to back you up but the hot air coming out of your mouth is crap and anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that.
People act like he was a warning sign for why unqualified people shouldn't be president, but I kinda took it the other way around. If Trump, who is both incomprehensibly stupid and actively malicious, trying to hurt the country as much as he could, could manage to have his damage so limited, even with Republicans enabling him all over the place, then it stands to reason that anyone who is genuinely acting in good faith and wants to do the job well can manage it pretty okay, especially if they're ready to listen to available experts on everything.
Well it doesn't specify dragon type/color. Not every dragon has an innate alternate form ability, so hopefully you get one of those.
Age is also an issue. Depending on how old you are, you'll probably be somewhere between young to young adult. If you're at least 50 you can hit young adult. This means you're pretty limited in a lot of things, and if you have your innate spellcasting at all, it's gonna be pretty limited.
If you're one of the dragon colors that doesn't get innate alternate form, you're probably gonna have to hide for the better part of a century just to get old enough to have some decent spells.
So there are downsides, if temporary ones, to the dragon option. Still, it's probably the best choice, yes.
Although that case is real, it did not happen in the US; I believe it was Russia or some other former Soviet Republic. Under systems of law evolved from British common law, it is generally held as necessary to inform the other party of such a change to the contract.
Sending bills for services not rendered can actually result in payment from large corporations because they are constantly receiving bills, so if it looks right there is a chance someone will just pay it. However, I believe it is also fraud if they notice and can thus get you in trouble; remember, the law is primarily there to protect companies and rich people.
I wonder sometimes if elections were specifically turned around if it would improve things. That is, you don't vote FOR someone, you just cast a vote saying 'not that guy, anyone else is better' and whoever has the least votes against them wins.
I'm not sure what the downsides would be, but I think people would better understand it if it was framed that way.
I mean, it's sort of what we have now: you can vote against one of the two possible candidates by voting for the other one, or you can refuse to participate by voting for anyone else. But reframing it to explicitly be voting against the person you don't like might result in better participation.
It should be noted that this should not work. In every version of the game I am aware of, the spell description for wish explicitly calls out wishing an enemy dead as something the spell should not be able to accomplish. The typical monkey's paw that is described as happening when you attempt to wish a person dead is that you are propelled forward in time until after they die, effectively removing you from their lifespan. This is part of the 5e description of wish as well.
Vlaakith is an ancient and powerful enough lich that it is entirely reasonable she has the means to kill a low level adventurer like the protagonist of BG3, even from her safe stronghold on another plane of existence, however, the particular method they chose to have her do it in is explicitly called out as something that is impossible, and shouldn't have been used, if only because it sets a bad example for people who have never played D&D and BG3 is their first experience with it.