PeriodicallyPedantic

joined 2 years ago
[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 10 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I appreciate them for making walking easier

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I think you need to read the comic again.
It's calling the USA (white) uncivilized, and everywhere else (mostly not white) civilized.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I thought as much just from playing videogames and knowing how a claymore is supposed to work in the general sense.

But I would argue that this is poor and ambiguous labeling, but I guess it's simple enough of a device that it becomes clear anyways. Presumably with opposite labels on the opposite side.

[This is the] front
[Point it] towards the enemy

Vs

[The] front
[Should be pointed] towards the enemy

I imagine someone panicking, not thinking clearly, thinking that an instructional label is on the side they should be looking at, and therefore putting it the wrong way around. Like if there was a sticker on a rifle that said "front towards enemy" you wouldn't hold the rifle such that the sticker was facing the enemy.

It takes so little effort to fix ambiguous labeling, it makes me annoyed when it's not fixed, especially in safety critical situations.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Is that text an instruction, or a description?

Like is that on the back, telling me to point the front towards the enemy?
Or is this informative, telling me that this IS the front, and that it should be pointed at the enemy instead of me?

I'd assume they'd put text they want the user to read on the side that should be facing the user, but I get the feeling that that's not what they did.

Edge with the homies

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're thinking of fragile.

Fungible is a brand of prepacked lunches, typically containing crackers, bologna, and cheese.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It didn't have to a URL to an image. It could have been a serial number showing ownership of a thing, etc.

But block chain isn't really necessary for a registry, and in the end the money was in scamming people by selling them urls to images.

I prefer my burgers as red black trees

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

My thighs touch each other in the wrong way, when I'm sleeping on my side. I need something smooth between them.

Eh, I hate the guy but I don't really care how much of a whiney little hypocrite this makes him, because I already knew all that.

The extent to which I care about this is the extent to which I can use it to point out hypocrisy on the right. Which isn't honestly very much since they don't care about being hypocrites.

 

What is a bread roll if not all crust?
What is toasting, if not making the whole piece of bread more crust-like?

 

When toilets try to save money by reducing the amount of water they use per flush, but you end up having to flush like 3 times 🤬

 

What would you put in your second aid kit?

72
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
 

Be me.
I've started sitting down to pee because it's cleaner.
Stand up after I've finished peeing.
Pull up pants.
Turn around to flush.
There is poop in the toilet.
I forgot that this time I had sat down to poop.

 

In old plays and stories, such as Romeo and Juliet, poisons are depicted as being fairly fast acting.

Would they really have had access to such poison, or was it simply creative license? What would a realistic depiction of a poison of that era be?

 

I'm trying to figure out a ruling for something one of my players wants to do. They're invisible, but they took a couple of seemingly non-attack actions that my gut says should break inviz.

Specifically, they dumped out a flask of oil, and then used a tinderbox to light it on fire. Using a tinderbox isn't an attack, nor is emptying a flask, although they are actions , and the result of lighting something on fire both seems like an attack and something that would dispell inviz.

I know that as DM I can rule it however I want, but I'm fairly inexperienced and I don't wanna go nerfing one of my players tools just because it feels yucky to me personally without understanding the implications.

Is this an attack or is there another justification for breaking inviz that is there some RAW clause I didn't see? Or should this be allowed?

 
 
 

I know I have small hands but c'mon. Flagship phones these days are strait up small tablets, not even what we'd have called on phablets 15 years ago.

I know it's what people buy, but I'm still sad that if I want a phone that small then I have to deal with camera and display a couple gens old

116
hmmm (lemmy.ca)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca to c/hmmm@lemmy.world
 

That was quick

 

Ontario must never be forgiven for this

view more: next ›