xgranade

That was my initial thought, yeah, but I couldn't find any explicit ruling to that effect; only that both halves of the melded card should be able to go to the command zone in the weird partner/meld case (as per 903.9c applying to each half separately).

The closest I've been able to find to a resolution has been the Gatherer rulings on [[Gisela, the Broken Blade]]:

In a Commander game, your commander may be Bruna, the Fading Light or Gisela, the Broken Blade, and the other may be in your deck. If they meld into Brisela, Voice of Nightmares, Brisela will also be your commander; but if Brisela leaves the battlefield, only the card chosen as your commander at the start of the game may be put into the command zone.

That just says that the melded card is a commander, though, and not what happens when the melded commander does combat damage. From the Comprehensive Rules, it seems to come down to what's meant by "the same commander":

903.10a A player who’s been dealt 21 or more combat damage by the same commander over the course of the game loses the game. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

A few other CRs would seem to shed light, but I'm still not quite sure of the resolution:

903.3b If a player’s commander is a meld card and it’s melded with the other member of its meld pair, the resulting melded permanent is that player’s commander.

903.3c If a player’s commander is a component of a merged permanent, the resulting merged permanent is that player’s commander.

903.9c If a commander is a melded permanent or a merged permanent and its owner chooses to put it into the command zone using the replacement effect described in rule 903.9b, that permanent and each component representing it that isn’t a commander are put into the appropriate zone, and the card that represents it and is a commander is put into the command zone.

I'm a big fan of Docspell, there's lots of ways to import docs in (watching a folder, watching an e-mail account, etc), and it plays really well with my IdP instance over OIDC.

It's deep in the replies to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prompt_engineering#Neutral_point_of_view. Thanks as well for reinstating the NPOV template, really bothers me that it was unilaterally deleted without any addressing of the problem.

acronym-spouting rules lawyers

That's pretty much the response I got offering even extremely mild dissent from AI spam. Apparently, "WP:MNA" means you can just make shit up as long as industry blog posts rely on that wild fever dream being true, for instance. Handy!

The number of sources isn't really the issue; many of those are industry advertisements, such as blog posts on product pages, for instance. Out of the few that are papers, almost all are written exclusively by industry research teams — while that doesn't on its own invalidate their results, it does mean that there's a strong financial interest in the non-consensus view (in particular, that LLMs can be "programmed"). The few papers that have been peer-reviewed have extreme methodological flaws, such that there's essentially almost no support for the article's bombastic and extreme non-consensus claims.

I could see technology as being black, a la how Korra treated technology vs spirits in its final arc.

(For the most part, excepting those I haven't played the main questline end-to-end.)

SSSS: X
S: VII, XIV, XVI
A: XIII, XII, Tactics, FFTA, VIIR, VIIR-2
B: VI, IX, XIII-2, Type-0
C: VIII, IV, Crystal Chronicles, Dissidia, X-2, LR: XIII, Bravely Default
F: Crystal Chronicles S, the Android port of FFT

I love everything I've listed at C... for me, that just means "interesting ideas that I really love and hope they'll revisit, but that ultimately didn't land for me as a game in the form it was released in." And yes, Bravely Default is a Final Fantasy game imho.

[Sorry for continually editing this, the Markdown formatting keeps giving me issues.]

Both can be true? He said some mildly pro-queer-rights stuff pretty soon before that all happened, and it's clear that Grimes calling him out and his daughter disowning him got under his skin. That's not to defend, not even slightly; rather, the shift in targets and more explicit right-wing affiliation definitely go along with him being (and I wish I could remember who coined this) the most divorced man on the planet.

The moral failings were already there, but now he's found a big glowing target for his tantrums, unfortunately for us queer folks.

Yes and no. Even in living memory, the Southern Strategy goes all the way back to the 60s, and explicitly identifies opposition to the civil rights movement as a conservative goal. Going all the way back to the Civil War, it's undeniable how much the economy of the United States is built on slavery — opposing slavery is thus also an economic argument.

Point being, I don't think there was some time in the past where economic policy could be so cleanly separated from racial justice, gender equality, queer rights, disability advocacy, and other things that are now seen as "polarizing." Every economic debate is, I would posit, at least to some significant degree a proxy for a much more critical human rights debate.

I understand the limitations, but please consider the signal that sends

that it's OK to rip off art if you do it at scale, and that the climate impact is no big deal. Especially for new communities, that tells folks right off the bat to stay away.

Is that an AI generated picture for the post?