archer

That's something I wanted to write but didn't have the patience. ^^^^ And Duke is the product of a couple of generations of schools which actively teach history. Just think about how much less someone would know after generations of a society which had no interest in learning history. And actually doing research to figure out if the history you know (or teach) is accurate or not is very much a modern fetish. For centuries the height of learning was quoting what the ancient Greeks had to say about the world or repeating Josephus. I'd fully expect any fantasy world to not have much interest in its own history unless there was some equivalent event to "the discovery of the riches of King Tut's tomb" to kick off some archeological/history craze.

Buy it as a OAF pendant. Costs END after the Resurrection is accomplished. Costs x10 END. So he pops back from death then is immediately Stunned because he didn't have, what, 130 END available?

There's gotta be a sex joke in there somewhere....

Immunity to Digestive Acids, then call it a day.

Dad Sucks at Doing the Laundry And now the absolute worst......Uncle Donald Came to Visit Today.

A Year Ago, I Started Sending My GF These Photos Whenever She Asked If The Baby Was OK I was shocked when Dad asked me to fix the electricity.

Wasn't there supposed to be a scorpion somewhere in that story?

After having gone through this with a large number of different relatives, two who've have died in the last couple months, I don't think you can go wrong with "angry". You can always transition to "sad" if you have unvaccinated relatives who get angry at you for not attending a funeral crowded with unvaccinated mourners.

Also, had this 1982 Supreme Court case pointed out to me. LARKIN ET AL. v. GRENDEL'S DEN, INC. https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/5577 Apparently, a state can't in all cases delegate regulatory duties to private individuals or private organizations because it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It has to pick and choose when it can according to whether the private organization is substantially doing the regulatory duty using the same standard as a state agency would. In the Texas abortion case, however, the state is attempting to devolve regulatory power onto private individuals or private organizations which no state agency even has. That's violating the precedent which Larkin v Grendel set up. Which makes any court challenge to the Texas law much easier since the Supreme Court has already set up guidelines for how to a state may do such a thing. And how it may not....

On the other hand, Mexico just decriminalized abortion...which could start up a brisk abortion tourism industry.

News you can use: Texas Gov. Abbott defends new abortion law, vows to 'eliminate all rapists' https://www.aol.com/news/texas-gov-abbott-defends-abortion-201300646.html I guess if rape is eliminated that it doesn't matter that the new law has no exceptions for rape....

The best part was when Shang-Chi sang "If Loving You is Wong, I Don't Wanna Be Right".

I've wanted to have multiple pantheons. But players had trouble keeping track of one pantheon so there wasn't much point in introducing a second one. In real life, pantheons were created by cultures which were separated by significant distances and often significantly different time periods. For example, the Egyptian pantheon was pretty well established by 3000 BC while the Greek "12 major gods" pantheon was established no earlier than 600 BC. Yeah, their worship overlapped into the Roman period but the heyday of Egyptian pantheon worship was well behind them by that point. The Norse and Mayan pantheons didn't come into existence until widespread worship of the Egyptian and Greek pantheons were long over. If I were to attempt it in-game, I'd try to establish a border region between two empires or cultures and let the worship of two different pantheons exist there. If the players don't care for the mix, they can leave the border region. And if they find one of the pantheons boring or annoying, they can escape it by going to the other culture. I'd also explicitly talk to the players about whether there was tolerance or intolerance between the religions. Modern times have gotten people used to Christianity and Islam which are exclusive and intolerant of competition rather than Shintoism, Sindoism, Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism which don't require exclusivity. So I'd be sure to explain that context for each of the religions. They could both be exclusive. They could both be inclusive. You could have one which was exclusive and the other which was inclusive which would make for very confused converts. But you don't want a player misunderstanding his religion and create a Shinto paladin who runs around trying to forcibly convert people or smiting the heathen.

I'm going to use my cell phone while driving to take a picture of you using your cell phone while driving so I can be the one to collect the $10,000 reward!

In the realm of what could possibly go wrong with that: "So you're going to try to grab my guns? Good luck prying them with your cold, dead hands...."

Can you have clones of the same person?

Eventually some major hospital will get hit by one of these lawsuits. Texas Medical Center in Houston, for example, is the largest hospital in the world, sees 10 million patients per year, and has 106,000 employees. So you're going to get a judge decide to shut it down because some doctor fudged the line on whether or not a single procedure was okay? San Antonio’s Methodist Hospital? Baptist Medical Center in San Antonio? Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas?

At a minimum, the litigant will have to file for a subpoena to get the patient's medical records and plead the necessity for that in front of a judge against a lawyer for the patient (and/or medical facility) before the bounty lawsuit could get started. I don't see that going well if the litigant isn't a lawyer himself, even in front of a very friendly judge. If the judge grants it, the defendant would immediately appeal and the judge's decision would pretty automatically get overturned on appeal because the litigant will have screwed up either in the original case or will screw something up in the appeals process because he doesn't know what he's doing. Getting his decisions overturned is not the kind of negative publicity a judge is looking for.

'Majority' of Afghan SIVs left behind, State Dept. official estimates State briefing confirms that Taliban were handed manifests for buses with evacuees and that there “were days it did not work well.” https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/01/afghanistan-sivs-left-behind-state-dept-508327

"Is it Shagadelic, baby?" - Austin Powers

Particularly poor women who can't afford to leave the state to get an abortion....

I've not tasted enough minions to even be able to determine their flavor palate.

One thing I can way about this anti-abortion bill is that it's well-written. I could think of several things off the top of my head which would allow it to be overturned or limited but they'd preemptively stopped all of those possible leaks (like the existing legislation against frivolous lawsuits doesn't apply to this law and you can't change the venue to find a more friendly judge). And that's including being overturned by the US Supreme Court. The legislation is written to that the various provisions are expressly severable from each other. So if the Supreme Court objects to the law based on one, two, three, or eight provisions, those individual provisions would be repealed but the rest of the law would remain in place. The only hole I've thought of that the legislation didn't plug is the one where the Trump election lawyers are getting into trouble for filing lawsuits which have evidence or no basis and the lawyers knew that going in. So the lawyers could lose their license to practice law by filing ridiculous lawsuits using this law. For example, there's no dedicated abortion clinics in Texas. All that exist are multipurpose women's health clinics. So if the only evidence a bounty hunter has is that a woman walked into a health clinic and the lawyer filed a lawsuit with that as his only "evidence", a hostile judge could rake him over the coals for that. And honestly, should rake him over the coals for that. Also federal HIPPA rules still apply so the patient's medical records are confidential. So a lawyer would have to request to subpoena the medical records, the patient would be notified and have a chance to refuse, then a judge would have to decide whether there's enough justification to let a third party look at someone's private medical records (beyond a sheer fishing trip through someone else's private medical information.) And the Texas law has no method of altering that.

I'm waiting on the legislation which will allow people to sue if they think you aren't contributing to climate change.