You could just look up articles on his policies - given his high profile status, they’re all over right now.

Terraria

No, but a multiplayer game which starts with, for example, 4 players could be reduced to 2 players before it ends, so they have to specify ‘begins with’ to keep that multiplayer game from also being a two-player game at that point.

And this really sums up the level of semantics and minutia that requires a 299 page comprehensive rule PDF for a card game.

Or any interaction that requires understanding layers.

In all fairness, the instructions you actually need to know to play the game could be summarized in a single page (with the caveat that there will be a lot of edge cases that won’t be adequately explained there); tournament judges and, to a lesser extent, tournament players are the only folks who need to know the majority of what’s in that PDF.

That said, the game is super archaic and hard to learn, and any player who thinks otherwise is probably either playing only at a super basic level, or just isn’t considering how long they’ve been playing and how much nuance they’ve accumulated. Sorry you had a shitty experience; your friends absolutely should not have tried to throw you into the deep end like that. You sound like you already know, but to reiterate it, this was absolutely not a failing on your part and was 100% your friends’ fault.

If you actually want to try the game (and I completely understand if you don’t), you can go to a game store that sells MtG products and ask for a (free) intro deck. They’re small decks with simpler cards and a booklet explaining the basic game rules that can be helpful to learn the game.

There’s also Magic Arena, the computer game version, which really does a pretty good job of teaching the game. If you don’t mind that format, I’d absolutely start there.

Wow. If you told me this was satire, I’d 100% believe you.

“Here, just use this easy quick-reference PDF.”

Come in with some bolt cutters. Free the milk.

The question wasn’t, “Could this be used as evidence?”, it was “Would this exonerate you?”

Maybe we’re answering two different questions, but I don’t see this being enough to exonerate anyone without some supporting evidence to go with it.

It’s like saying you couldn’t have committed a crime because your TV was on at the time; it seems too flimsy to even be usable if you didn’t have some other form of evidence supporting that it was actually you using it to go along with it. I’m not a lawyer, so it’s possible I’m totally wrong, but surely no competent lawyer would expect that to work and no judge would take that as evidence on its own merits.

It wouldn’t exonerate you, unless you could prove beyond a doubt that it was you using the phone. It’d be easy, if you were planning a murder, to give an accomplice your phone and have them use it all night to cover for you. It might be able to be used in conjunction with other evidence, though, to assist in your defense.

I remember when I was in middle school, I saw my older brother working on a Unix system and it looked like he was some elite hacker. Now, it’s the same look I get from my kid any time he sees me doing anything in the terminal.

Maybe I needed to add a \s to that. :D

Swordfish was always one of my favorites. Writing a worm using a custom compiler he wrote many years prior (to 2001) and had stored on a tape drive in some dusty basement.

Hacking scenes in old movies are ridiculous to look back on. Always some crazy GUI-heavy pseudo-video game with people clattering away madly on keyboards and tense music playing. So unlike hacking scenes of today, which are obviously much more realistic to appeal to a refined modern audience. We’ve truly come a long way.

As far as I’m aware, death punishment is not what happened to any of those that refused during Vietnam or Afghanistan.

“Life-ending consequences” doesn’t necessarily mean literal death. Court martials for serious offenses (which disobeying orders absolutely is) can come with very heavy penalties. It’s possible that it’s a regional colloquialism, but ‘life-ending consequences’ refers to consequences that end “life as you know it”, typically referring to something that is reasonably impossible to recover from.

Trump got democratically elected

Debatable.

thousand of soldiers carried out his orders while they could have refused

Refusing lawful orders comes with life-ending consequences.

Calling them orcs or implying the population is all shit?

Personally, I think equating any population with the actions of its government is a poor move, but you do you.

I have heard that small recurring donations are more helpful in general than larger one-time donations, so that’s what I tend to do - small recurring donations to services I use or creators whose content I consume. I tend to only do this when the service or content is primarily donation-supported, though.

This is also easier for me to manage, because it becomes a monthly recurring cost and I can see easily how much I’m spending on donations and adjust them as needed, whereas with larger one-time donations, I tend to lose track of how much the total is in a given period.

I believe their meaning was, ‘Do you have to see boots on the ground before you call it a war?’, not accusing you personally of wanting war.

It’s worth giving this paper from 2021 a read. The basic conclusion is that shifting away from an opt-in organ donation system does not increase the number of actual organs available, because the number of people willing to donate organs is not the (only) bottleneck in obtaining usable organs.