Yeah that's definitely the most straightforward and intuitive option. It's what I thought it might be until I read the rules closer.
The closer read of the rules ("Success For an item...you get a sense of what it does") leaves me with what I think could be a really cool dramatic bit of storytelling if they don't know exactly what the spell does, but do know roughly what it does.
I'd sooner take the opinion of a head of lettuce than this wet noodle.
I would say it contracted a terminal illness at some point around 2006±1 and went into palliative care in 2008±1, but didn't fully die for another 5ish years. The death of Google Reader seems a good landmark to use, since RSS was a really helpful tool that became less necessary as sites became more centralised.
Since Identify Magic is a Secret action, I prerolled the Arcana roll for the player I'm expecting to try to identify the scroll, so I could plan a misdirect on the spell if they critical failed. As it happens, they got a natural 20, so the question is kinda moot, though it's something that may come up again so I'm still curious about how it should be played.
I might just be misremembering, but I don't think the fine itself increased, it's just that their total costs have increased since they have to pay the legal costs for both sides.
What does this mean in practice? Will union staff not be allowed to work for Boeing centres and other companies sending weapons to Israel? Is there a process by which the unions can specifically pressure the unis themselves to divest?
What's concerning to me is that this Australian court is considering the intricate details of Nevada's merger law at all. From reading this article, it sounds to me that if Nevada changed its merger law so that an acquiring company didn't keep legal liabilities imposed by other countries on the acquired party, the Australian court would have decided that indeed, X doesn't have to pay Twitter's fine. Which is an insane takeaway IMO.
We should be looking at this through the lens of Australian law only, and trying to figure out what Australian merger process is mostly closely related to the Nevada one which was used.
Nah I think they're more or less right. I'd maybe pull it back 3 or 4 years, but not as far as 2004.
What killed off the old wild web was the popularity of centralised platforms. Facebook (open since 2006, really started taking off more around 2008/9), YouTube (first video 2005, really takes off from 2007/8), and Reddit (self posts first allowed in 2008), and other things like that which were admittedly great for allowing more people to share their creations with the world, but we're disastrous for the open web, because they killed off independent blogs, forums, and other smaller websites.
Yes but only among girls.
Connections
Puzzle #482
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟦🟦🟦🟦
Skill 97/99
Uniqueness 1 in 177
You do it with . Optionally, you can also put alt text in by putting it between the square brackets.
People are trying to blame population growth for rising housing costs, but Melbourne's property market is - generally speaking - cooler than Brisbane’s, even though Melbourne's population is growing much faster than Brisbane’s (Melbourne population growth is faster than Brisbane’s both in overall numbers and as a percentage rate).
The data suggests there's no significant difference between the rates of private housing construction in Melbourne and Brisbane that would explain why Melbourne is becoming comparatively more affordable. There are lots of variables that contribute to these divergent trends, including that Brisbane homes are generally bigger (which is partly reflected in the price of homes). But one of the biggest and most obvious differences is that in Queensland, a higher proportion of homes are being purchased by property investors, whereas in Victoria, the proportion of investors hoarding houses and apartments for profit seems to be around 5% lower.
Recently, Victoria has made at least two significant changes affecting the property market:
When Victoria reformed its land tax system and proposed new protections for renters, the real estate industry kicked up a stink and warned that property investors would leave the market and that this would reduce the supply of rentals.
But people like myself have long been pointing out that when profit-motivated investors sell up, the homes themselves don't disappear - they are often purchased by first home-buyers who would otherwise be competing in the rental market.
The warnings from the property industry have been PARTIALLY correct, in that the changes to Victorian legislation and taxation HAVE discouraged property investors and led to some landlords selling up and shifting their capital elsewhere. But contrary to their fear-mongering, the exodus of profit-driven investors seems to be putting downward pressure on both rents and house prices - a good thing for ordinary people.
The fewer property investors there are buying up housing, the cheaper prices become. If buying gets cheaper, renting also gets cheaper. I'd be interested to hear alternative explanations of what's going on, but to me, the divergent trends between major Australian cities seems to be showing quite clearly that population growth is not the primary driver of rising prices, and that it's the treatment of housing as a commodity - and the number of property investors - that's the real problem.
Connections
Puzzle #483
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟨🟨🟨
Skill 99/99
Uniqueness 1 in 157