I completely agree with that sentiment. I think the d20 itself is flawed in that it provides linear probability. I’m more a fan of 3d6 for the bell curve it provides.

When it comes to the damage, I can agree that a degree of success should play into it. I do like how white wolf systems carried the success level over into the damage roll.

Conveniently, clicking through to the actual data returns a 404.

I generally agree. For one shots, there are much slimmer systems out there.

I’m not sure I agree about splitting hit and damage feeling weird, but it definitely is slow. But overall, yeah. DnD is generally one of my least favorite systems to play in.

That first chart isn’t even trying to hide that is fake. It’s depicting a perfect mirroring.

You sure? You seem rather confused by the math, my friend.

Also, Pepsi Max is a zero calorie drink, so 1 a day is hardly a lot. Three artificial sweeteners aren’t the best for you, but OP shouldn’t feel like they are ruining their health on that.

To this point, for me, it was all about the bubbles. So replacing with a seltzer water did wonders. Sometimes I still have a craving to pound bubbles real quick.

To answer disassociating you. You had help. That’s how.

Real talk, what is the real barrier to somebody creating a competing publishing firm for these things.

I’m not a scientist, but I always hear about how expensive it is to either publish or get access to scientific papers without contacting the author directly. Why does that reputation exist? Why does it seem like the scientific community is so dependent on stuff like this?

It’s interesting because I didn’t have any game breaking bugs and I had a 5950x, 32GB, and a 3080.

That launch was a serious YMMV situation.

The bugs were not experienced by everybody. On my PC I ran into no critical bugs and very few minor bugs on launch week. I was definitely lucky, though.

It’s possible many review sites were running rigs similar to mine. I personally had a blast with it even at launch and played it 3 times in the first 3 months. Though, it’s definitely much better now, it wasn’t a bad game on its own before, if not for the stability issues must people had.

I think the headline is poorly worded. Apple paid $20 a person to not have to respect their privacy. They did that because our lack of privacy is worth much more than $20 to them.

This isn’t 32000 in 1 wave, though. This is ~2500 a year over 13 years. Even the answers given at the beginning of the study could have changed wildly if the same people had been polled at the end. And even if not, 4 people per city is not representative of an entire city at any given moment of time.

What demographics in China did they poll each year? Did they poll people of different racial profiles? Did they poll uyhgurs? Were the candidates selected randomly or were the assigned by the government? If the latter, were they coached or paid? Any number of things could throw off that study.

That is by far the least satisfying study I’ve ever heard. 32000 people surveyed over 13 years. That’s essentially 3.5 people per city in China. How are we to take that as a valid survey?

I’d certainly be interested in how those Harvard studies were accomplished what with much of China not being on the Internet. 95 percent certainly sounds high.

TIL it’s common to give onions a name before cutting them.