That's a remarkable number of words to dodge a very simple question lmao
Just to be entirely clear--are you taking the position that given the choice between (a) the world where you don't vote and Trump wins and (b) the world where you vote Biden and Trump loses, you would take (a)?
Because the stakes of this election are so very, very high. Trump genuinely and explicitly wants to create a fascist state; it's borderline incomprehensible that somebody would choose to sit out and let that happen just because they don't like Biden.
That's most definitely not "ceasing all road construction," and actually sounds like a feasible (ignoring realities of modern politics) plan that I would get behind.
OK so... demonstrate it? Explain how, with absolutely 0 maintenance for 20 years (or whatever you consider a reasonable time to bring every single road up to bicycle and pedestrian usability standards), the roads would be able to support the flow of commuters, emergency vehicles, and deliveries. You can appeal to your own authority all you want, but it's worth just about jack if you don't back it up.
Given that it takes a long time to bring a street up to standard (budgeting, design, contracting, and constructing), that would probably be 10-20 years at an optimistic estimate to get every street up. In that time, under your proposal, the roads would become undrivable, and therefore:
- Emergency vehicles would be unable to operate. Thousands die.
- Traffic increases exponentially as the usable roads become increasingly infrequent and commuters flock to the few good ones. The above problem is made worse; gas usage increases dramatically as more and more cars sit idle for hours a day.
- Highway safety plummets. Thousands die in avoidable crashes.
- Roads become impassible to trucks. Deliveries of food and goods grind to a halt. Starvation, food riots, economic collapse follow.
I'm all for increasing walkability and bikability; I'm fortunate enough to live in a city that is both, and it's great. Proposals like this, however, do nothing but make it look like the movement is a bunch of "fuck cars" knee-jerkers who know nothing about infrastructure and can thus be safely disregarded.
That looks fairly tightly bonded to me--you'd probably be better off trying to cover it than remove it. There's maybe a solvent, but without knowing which compounds are used for the lettering and the case, it's a shot in the dark--always worth trying isopropyl alcohol for this sort of thing imo, but it also might damage the case.
Unrelated, but the random blue "AI" slapped haphazardly on top is a beautiful piece of accidental comedy given That Company's rollout of AI
The "but framing is an art" argument has never made sense to me. The job of calling balls and strikes is already too hard for even an excellent umpire to do perfectly; the notion that we should reward players for trying to make it harder is lunacy. Every rules change forces players to adapt, and benefits some while hurting others.
Don't forget that Cleveland team! Not as bad as Washington, but disgraceful that it lasted so long.
They're definitely better entertainment pound-for-pound. I'd contend that the book gives you a lot more to think about, so it really depends what you're after. I like them both a lot--I think they complement each other very nicely.
does adding the copyright/license information do anything?
Not a lawyer, but I'd be sore amazed if "your honor, he copy/pasted my Lemmy comment" flies in court, regardless of your copyright status. The same goes for those AI use notices--they're a nice feel-good statement, but the scrapers won't care, and good luck (a) proving they scraped your comment, (b) proving they made money on it, and (c) getting a single red dime for your troubles.
So that my players see me roll the dice. As long as they believe the illusion, the roll is real to them, and so their experience is meaningful and memorable; at the end of the day, that's what matters most to me as a DM.