Ineth

Alright, so I found the Greenstone Staff and bound it to my mage (hired generic companion). The first level-up for the staff ("Do X damage to beetles, or Y damage to other enemies") was very easy; on the same map where I found the staff there was also a group of beetles, and they were more than enough to do the required amount of damage with the staff. However, I can't seem to get any progress for the second level-up: The mage has definitely finished off a bunch of enemies with it - but the count remains at zero. To be sure, I got some enemies down to one health dot with the help of the whole party, and then let the party stand back while the Mage finished them off with the Greenstone Staff. But the staff's kill counter just won't rise. Is there something I'm missing about this mechanic, or should I open a bug report?

@tamimh Looks like you installed the Pillars 2.0x patch but not the corresponding Wild March 2.0x patch. You need both, as BAdler stated here.

Some slightly more mainstream outlets treating the UN report with the facepalming it deserves: The U.N.’s Cyberharassment Report Is Really Bad - nymag.com UN Broadband Commission Releases Questionable Report On 'Cyber Violence' Against Women - techdirt.com DiGRA doesn't seems to be on board, either: Even Randi breaks rank: aGG tried to sell Sarkeesian and Quinn going to the UN as a huge win for their 'side'; it doesn't look like that now, does it?

lol

People should be allowed to cover themselves as much as they want. At the same time, businesses (especially security-sensitive ones like banks) should be allowed to have house rules that forbid guests to enter the premises with their faces covered. I thought those things would seem obvious to most people? What is there to discuss?

No, he's saying that about his old employer. The one he's complaining about for being "not journalism, really". The one he describes with derogatory language like "aping", and clearly looks down on.

Does this mean they will no longer benefit from Weapon Focus talents?

Milo is really pushing his "troll columnist" shtick to the limit, isn't he? Here's everything Feminist Frequency can teach us about the effect of video games on society EDIT: Oh wait, that from months ago. This one is new though: Am I The Only Responsible Tech Journalist Left on the planet? "When you become popular and you’re also witty, charming, handsome, have great hair and are really humble as well, people love to tear you down. For instance, people love to try to pick holes in my reporting [...]" -- I'm not even sure what to say to that.

Sounds like a standard description of a US establishment left-authoritarian to me, but whatever. The term "liberal" is so ambiguous that I suppose it can fit too if you want it to... (It was the more specific "neo-liberal" which I found strange in this context.) --- Moving on, more UN silliness: Harassing smileys? I'm half-disappointed they didn't coin the term "cyber catcalling" for those, yet. Also, I'm wondering if they intend to establish a cyber authority to cyber investigate and cyber prosecute all that cyber violence. Will there be cyber prisons? (<-- showing tongue, so definitely a sexually harassing smiley!)

Nah, just your typical "progressive" left-winger using "progressive" rhetoric in the usual way. I wouldn't say he's becoming 'more and more' like that though, it seems to be pretty much in line with this notorious tweet of his from about a year ago:

<image deleted>

WikiLeaks comments: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/647421818081517568

The term "Social Justice" was crafted in the same way. "Top-down enforced equality of outcome between group averages? Nah, let's use the word justice in there."

"killing zombies", lolwut

It depends on the 'kind' of immigrants. They tend to have a very positive impact if they either... were already part of the wealthy/successful/highly-educated class of their country of origin(e.g. most Muslim immigrants to the US), or are willing to work hard and take unpleasant jobs that others won't(e.g. most Mexican immigrants to the US, and Polish immigrants to western EU countries). They tend to have not such a positive impact on the economy if they... are poor and uneducated, are hostile towards the culture of their host country, and come for the welfare benefits rather than for work(e.g. many Muslim immigrants to the EU). The reason why the US gets more immigrants with a positive economic impact, has probably to do with its smaller and less easy to exploit welfare system, the fact that people abroad still believe in the American Dream (even if most Americans themselves don't), the natural barrier known as the Atlantic Ocean which separates it from Africa and the Middle East, its stricter immigration and naturalization laws. In any case, this is why Europeans tend to be apprehensive of immigration from Muslim countries, whereas Americans don't understand what the European's problem is: They are used to very different demographics of Muslim immigrants, so they're kind of talking past each other. In the current crisis, though, I believe the fears expressed by Woldan et al are misplaced. The Syrian refugees are not your normal welfare migrants whom you've made bad experiences with, they are people from all walks of life who have been displaced by a civil war or by political/religious persecution. Many of them will be hard-working and industrious people who will likely contribute meaningfully to their host countries.

Isn't this what the EU has always been about? They had a good thing going with the EEC (straight-forward free trade agreement). Opening borders to allow freedom of movement for citizens between European countries could have been achieved with a similar treaty. But instead, they established the EU as a political union - and (unlike the US) one without proper democratic processes to guarantee representation, and without a constitution to guarantee liberty. ...What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah but in some religions, the violent fundamentalists can easily convince (especially young) believers that their way is indeed a "going back to the fundamentals!" by pointing at the example set by the religion's founder, whereas in other religions/philosophies they have to come up with auxiliary justifications. Isn't it commonly accepted now that "carpenter" was a mistranslation by Martin Luther, and that Jesus - if he existed - was most likely a stone quarry worker? (Considering a stone quarry apparently existed near where he grew up, and would fit the Greek word used to describe his day job). At least that's what I read in a 'popular history' article in an atheist magazine... Not that "stone quarry worker" wouldn't lend itself to jokes too, mind you...

No, my main point - in response to Hurlshot's original comment - was that the religions are different, and will have to go different paths towards secularism and enlightenment - if they are to reach it at all. One shouldn't put too much stock in the theory that Islam is just Christianity offset by 500 years, and will naturally take the same path. (i.e. the "boys will be boys" attitude towards Islam which is popular among the political left in the West.) Instead, the West should should take Islam seriously for what it is now, and do more to support secularists and civil rights activists in the Muslim world so they can make a stand against the fundamentalists.

I think they do, when it comes down to it. They won't use words like "warlord" and "genocide" to refer to it of course, nor focus on it when they call him an example to be followed. But the key points about his life's story as described by the Quran and Hadiths - that he led an army, that he conquered nations and subjugated nonbelievers, that he used various forms of violence to punish those who "deserved" it - that's not really contested among moderate Muslims, is it? You're right that it "doesn't really matter what type of person Mohammad was" according to actual historians. But it very much matters what Islam's own holy texts have to say about the matter, and how Islams highest religious institutions (e.g. the Al-Azhar University in Cairo in the case of Sunni Islam) interpret it. --- On a side note: The same goes for Judaism and Moses, who was also a warlord. But the difference is that unlike Islam's Muhammad and Christianity's Jesus, Moses is not portrayed as a super-human being in Judaism, nor a "perfect example to be followed" - he is portrayed as a normal man who served god in some ways but screwed up in others, and religious Jews are taught to learn from his life both things to do and things not to do. Whereas Jesus and Muhammad (according to their respective religions) left earth by "ascending" into heaven to sit next to God, Moses died a normal death (before he reached his goals, no less, as a punishment from god) and was buried somewhere in the desert. So that's why I kind of excluded Judaism from the comparison until now - it doesn't have a "larger than life" founder whose example a reformation could call believers to "go back to", like the other two book religions do.

Not at university level, no - but that's no reason for ad hominems. I think you may be misunderstanding what I meant by "back to the beginnings". Christians believe (based on the accounts in the Bible) that Jesus existed as a pacifist preacher who walked around Judea and Samaria (today known as the West Bank) around 30 AD to teach and heal people, and that the first Christian churches were established in line with his teachings shortly after his death. So that's what a "Back to the original teachings!" reformation naturally moves towards in the case of Christianity. Whether Christianity was actually formed in the 4th century and the now-canonical origin story inserted retroactively (a theory held by some historians, and apparently considered a fact by you), is totally irrelevant to that. Similarly, Muslims believe Muhammad existed and did certain things (based on the accounts in the Quran and some Hadiths), so that's what a "Back to the original teachings!" reformation would lead Islam towards, regardless of what historians discover about Muhammad's actual life or about how Islam was actually formed.

It's a popular theory, but I'm not so sure anymore. What if the Taliban and Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic State are the Islamic equivalent to the Christian reformation? Remember, the Christian reformation didn't happen because they said "Hey, let's erase some of our religion's beloved commandments as a compromise to make the world a better place for nonbelievers!" It happened because they said "Why did we allow political leaders to invent so many rules and stuff for their own political gain in the name of our religion? That **** wasn't part of the teachings of the founder of our religion! Let's go back to what it was supposed to be originally!" And that sounds very very similar to the explanations that ISIL & co give to defend what they're doing. That may sound strange at first, but here's the thing: The founder of the Christian religion was* a hippie who walked around barefeet and encouraged/hugged/healed people, and steered clear of wordly geopolitics. The founder of the Muslim religion was* a warlord who conquered nations with military might, and engaged in murder, genocide, slavery, torture, rape. That's a really tough pill to swallow for many on the left, who prefer the a-priori answers that postmodernist relativism gives, to those yielded by the evidence. But if we are to understand & deal with ISIL and the like, I don't think we can afford to not explore that context, no matter how politically incorrect. And to preempt the obvious rebuttal: I know, I know, Christians throughout history found all kinds of rationalizations for murder, genocide, slavery, torture and rape, as well. But a call for "Let's go back to the origins, to the example of our religion's founder!" tends to push Christianity into a more benign direction - whereas it shouldn't be assumed to have the same effect on Islam. ---- *)According to the respective religion's own 'authoritative' sources. Only partially (at best) confirmed by actual historians.

Cat-thulhu

Granted, the whole "That a game like this can come out in 2015 is ridiculous. It's brazenly, unapologetically sexist. [rabble rabble rabble]" shtick is as boring as it is predictable from these journos. On the other hand, I think the youtuber is being pedantic in also slamming the article for calling a spade a spade and informing readers that this is a game about boobs. I looked up a few seconds of Let's Play footage of said game, and the mini-cutscenes where clothing is torn away as HPs are lost, are pretty lewd and gratuitous. It's not wrong for a reviewer to drive home that point; it's just the sanctimonious social justice finger-wagging and "-ism" dropping that inevitably follows, which is a nuisance.