The fact that the DM presumably set a DC for the intimidate check is also not the part here that's in question.
OK, which part is?
Oh, yes that does change the meaning.
Just don't want it to be a consistent thing.
Easy, make the player deal with the consequences of eating a handful of gravel.
D&D is great because it allows for creative freedom and doesn't require that everything be explicitly permitted in the written rules. It is always the DM's prerogative to set a DC for any action and make the player roll for it, then roleplay the outcome, which is a lot more fun than just saying "no, you can't do that because it's not described in the rule book".
This isn't "homebrew", it's the right way to play.
Furthermore, DND specifically is kind of bad at creativity. It's very precariously balanced, with specific rules in odd places and no rules in others. Compare with, for example, Fate, which has "this thing in the scene works to my advantage" rules built in. DND is almost entirely in the hands of the DM.
It was never intended to be a complete, all-encompassing ruleset. It's a framework that you build on. It's intentionally open-ended because that allows greater freedom for both the DM and the players. If the rules are too strict then the gameplay is just mechanics with little room for roleplay.
When you think about it, the body of any living creature is an open container made of animal skin.
"I'm a personality prototype. You can tell, can't you?"
If you divert all the labor spent on useless shit towards actual things that people need then there is no need for a 996 work style.
But then who will make more money for the shareholders?
UBIOS's unique features over UEFI include increased support for chiplets and other heterogeneous computing use-cases, such as multi-CPU motherboards with mismatching CPUs, something UEFI struggles with or does not support. It will also better support non-x86 CPU architectures such as ARM, RISC-V, and LoongArch, the first major Chinese operating system.
Hmm, I haven't read the full spec, but typically when you're making mismatched components work together like this it means you can only support security features that are common for all of them - that is, any security can only be the lowest common standard. Does anybody know where to find more specific information on security features in UBIOS? Wider compatibility generally means more vulnerability.
One of the major design goals of UEFI was to add security to BIOS, which never had any real security in its design. If UBIOS is less secure than UEFI then it's really not a good idea to use it for anything beyond personal devices.
Does UBIOS have feature parity with UEFI or is it just targeting a different use case altogether? UEFI's security features are still not complete protection, but it would be a terrible idea to run a network server without them in the present cybersecurity environment.
Hey man, the tech literate people were saying this:
It's the VCs and the marketing people who were pushing cloud services as the next big thing.
The fact that the demonstrations were done with small molecules, however, means that the modeling run on the quantum computer could also have been done on classical hardware * (it only required 15 hardware qubits). So Google is claiming both quantum advantage and quantum utility, but not at the same time. The sorts of complex, long-distance interactions that would be out of range of classical simulation are still a bit beyond the reach of the current quantum hardware. O’Brien estimated that the hardware’s fidelity would have to improve by a factor of three or four to model molecules that are beyond classical simulation.
The quantum advantage issue should also be seen as a work in progress. Google has collaborated with enough researchers at enough institutions that there’s unlikely to be a major improvement in algorithms that could allow classical computers to catch up. Until the community as a whole has some time to digest the announcement, though, we shouldn’t take that as a given. **
The other issue is verifiability. Some quantum algorithms will produce results that can be easily verified on classical hardware—situations where it’s hard to calculate the right result but easy to confirm a correct answer. Quantum echoes isn’t one of those, so we’ll need another quantum computer to verify the behavior Google has described.
* Still not actually any more useful than similar modeling done on standard binary computers.
** Not peer reviewed.
"This attempt to help some people doesn't solve everyone's problems everywhere all at once, therefore it's not good enough!"