If Fantasy Name Generator isn’t doing it for me, then AI is definitely not going to cut it.

For me, the story and characters are the fun bit, and I stick to the mechanics as they already exist for the most part. But the names… I struggle naming one character. Naming large numbers of characters in a way that feels cohesive is hell.

My assumption is they meant a much thicker rope, but yeah, definitely not as heavy as they say.

And their least favourite letter is “Dear sir or madam, due to suspicious activity from your IP address…”

Do not buy that laptop. If they cut corners on the fucking description, who knows what else they’ll cut corners on.

It’s amusing to me how this isn’t the first of these accounts post “health advice” with an appeal to authority falacy within the last week.

Easy moral patch: These specific goblins have all made unambiguously evil choices that warrant a good slaying. Like kicking dogs. You’re not slaying goblins because they’re goblins, you’re slaying dog-kickers that happen to be goblins. There are plenty of goblins who do not kick dogs, but they’re not a part of this fight.

This is still a political statement that dog kickers are evil. I doubt anyone would mind that, and those that do are better off leaving my table anyway.

Nah, you’d just write up the first level in an Incident Report covering multiple dead demons. And more to the point, both bureaucracy and warfare are forms of politics, so killing demons is still a form of politics, with or without paperwork.

So, you want less bureaucracy and more warfare? That’s a pretty bold political statement right there. I’m sure there’s nothing political about war.

No, he’s too decrepit to get UP off his knees. But he wasn’t always geriatric, as I’m sure Bubba will tell you.

In fairness, there is a non-zero chance Trump has sucked off Putin already.

The episode is “The Principal and the Pauper”, where the Skinner you know is revealed to be an imposter. At the end of the episode, everyone agrees the real Skinner is a jerk, so they just stick with the imposter and pretend nothing happened.

Which is why it’s backwards. 2014 is represented by a jerk.

He was teleported taken to a world of magic weird room and had to fight a demon weird bear with the help of his mage deluded friend and an enchanted really sharp sword.

My first character was based on the classic meme of “an atheist in D&D”. I was then told the setting did not have proven gods, so being atheist was relatively normal. So I stepped it up and didn’t believe in magic either.

It was a fun character to play, honestly.

My argument was in response to a cultural stereotype, and informed by people I know in real life. My best friend has ARFID, and suffered depression. But thank you for ignoring most of my comment and proving you aren’t arguing in good faith. It’ll save me a lot of time this evening.

If I am going to take your argument in good faith, I need you to explain why you think I’m saying healthy eating isn’t good for you. I will also need you to explain why “good for you” means “prevents depression” when the article itself says that isn’t the case. I will need some acknowledgement of my “sad people eat comfort food” argument I have made in clear terms multiple times. Lastly, I will need you to apply the same question of “why is it so obvious” and snide remarks at “it doesn’t take a ___ to realise” phrases to the comment directly above mine that did the exact same thing.

Because right now, it feels like you aren’t even reading my comments.

That is… Not what I said. Think: If a person’s having a bad day, then they’re more likely to say “I don’t feel like cooking. I’ll just have a snack to make myself feel better.” Their mood affects their diet.

‘We are not in any way saying eating more vegetables is a cure for mental health’ - This article.

That shows a link between depression and gut microbes, but it seems to indicate that depression causes the lack of those microbes, rather than the other way around. Plus, it doesn’t say a THING about diet, cause those microbes process food instead of coming from it.

At most, you’ve proven a link. Not causation.

No they don’t. They explicitly say correlation is not causation, and all they have found is a link within a small sample size. A link that is equally well explained by mental health affecting diet.

Why should I listen to a rocket scientist about mental health? I mean, it hardly takes a brain surgeon to realise that people with depression will indulge in their comfort foods more often. Doritos don’t lead to depression; depression leads to doritos.