garyyo

looks like its just setting some events, these two lines should clear the anti-select and the anti-right click respectively if pasted into the debug console:

document.body.onselectstart = undefined
document.oncontextmenu = undefined

For the sake of roleplay and being friends, the idea of disabled people in fantasy settings should not be difficult to accept, but that doesn't mean that all fantasy IPs should have all sorts of modern disabilities. Like in a ttrpg you are creating a collaborative story using the ttrpg systems and in that sense heck yeah you can have magic chairs to transport otherwise disabled people. BG3 straight up cures blindness by use of a magical prosthetic eye, so there is even precedent for it in the popular dnd video game.

But what I totally want is some more creative and magical ways to handle disabilities, or maybe just whimsical. What about a druid that wildshapes into a snake to move around, and just slithers on the ground. straight up never uses a wheelchair cuz snek. Or magical leg armor. Prosthetic eyes? why not just have a large crystal ball that balances on your head that does the seeing for you.

Just remember that Orson Scott Card is a massive homophobe!

Good books though.

Realistically their does need to be some consideration but the medium they travel isn't air, but the occasional speck of dust, hydrogen atom, and other small stuff. It's not much but for interstellar travel there are still considerations needed, namely reducing your cross sectional area in the direction of travel. Long and thin gives you less drag since it hits less stuff.

Regardless the airplane looks doesn't make much sense anyway :)

Actually, space in general is mostly 2 dimensional, in that all the interesting stuff generally takes place on some sort of almost flat plane. A star system is generally on a plane, so is the galactic system, and for most planet+moons too. They just tend to be different planes so for ease of communication you will probably just align your idea of down with whatever the most convenient plane is. This of course is ignoring what gravity down is, as that changes as thrust does.

And as for ship alignment, yeah no one is going to worry about that till its time to dock, at which point the lighter vessel will likely change their orientation since its easier and takes less energy. Spaceships are not going to be within human sight range of each other most of the time, even being in relatively the same are. Space too big and getting ships close to each other is dangerous!

But in media that fucks with people's idea of meeting and seeing each other so for convenience of not confusing the audience you don't see that level of realism often.

In more realistic scenarios, "down" is just defined by the direction of thrust. So approaching a ship, they will be down assuming you are decelerating to match their velocity, but they will be up if you are still thrusting towards them.

But all of that has almost nothing to do with how people will think of orientation to other ships since generally speaking you won't be using eye sight to communicate ship to ship. At that point an agreed upon down will be needed. Probably aligned with galactic or star system to establish a plane, and probably right hand rule to establish up and down. In general given that space is big and ships are small they will just be points on each others radar until they need to dock with each other so it doesn't really matter how people are actually oriented, as long as when they communicate what they say makes sense to the other side.

edit: or maybe down is towards the currently orbitted gravity well, like towards a planet/moon/star.

The fuck? Abusing? They are homeless and just trying to survive and doing the best they can. They are making good use of their resources to embetter their own lives and the system allows for it. If homeless people go to the library perhaps the problem is not the homeless people but that THERE IS NO BETTER OPTION FOR THEM.

Idk about anyone else but its a bit long. Up to q10 i took it seriously and actually looked for ai gen artifacts (and got all of them up to 10 correct) and then I just sorta winged it and guessed and got like 50% of them right. OP if you are going to use this data anywhere I would first recommend getting all of your sources together as some of those did not have a good source, but also maybe watch out for people doing what I did and getting tired of the task and just wanting to see how well i did on the part i tried. I got like 15/20

For anyone wanting to get good at seeing the tells, focus on discontinuities across edges: the number or intensity of wrinkles across the edge of eyeglasses, the positioning of a railing behind a subject (especially if there is a corner hidden from view, you can imagine where it is, the image gen cannot). Another tell is looking for a noisy mess where you expect noisy but organized: cross-hatching trips it up especially in boundary cases where two hatches meet, when two trees or other organic looking things meet together, or other lines that have a very specific way of resolving when meeting. Finally look for real life objects that are slightly out of proportion, these things are trained on drawn images, and photos, and everything else and thus cross those influences a lot more than a human artist might. The eyes on the lego figures gave it away though that one also exhibits the discontinuity across edges with the woman's scarf.

15 mph is plenty fast enough to belong in the bike lane. You're good bro.

Thats how its supposed to work and in practice it kinda does, but the people with the money want positive results and the people doing the work have to do what they can to stay alive and relevant enough to actually do the work. Which means that while most scientists are willing to change their minds about something once they have sufficient evidence, gathering that evidence can be difficult when no one is willing to pay for it. Hard to change minds when you can't get the evidence to show some preconceived notion was wrong.

I guess I just don't really know what feature-rich means in this context but being proprietary, not fully cross platform, and banned on most private trackers seems like huge downsides for power users compared to customization, built in search, and integrated chat.

I get this chart probably not made for people like me in mind though.

Yeah, seems weird that simple "it downloads torrents" client gets a D. It gets the job done, is easy to figure out, and doesnt fuck about with features I would never touch. Maybe thats not enough for a power user but for me its exactly what I want.

(but then why is Tixati in B, seems to have mostly downsides?)