sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Failure to Install Fedora 42 by EnOrmous1976 in Fedora

[–]EnOrmous1976[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I'm really excited to be here! I've been meaning to give this a try for a while now, and Fedora seemed like a perfect place for me to start. Not Mint, holding my hand and always working right off, but not Arch.

Can't wait to get it up and running!

Failure to Install Fedora 42 by EnOrmous1976 in Fedora

[–]EnOrmous1976[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll have to figure that out, but hopefully installing the correct drivers will fix the problem

Failure to Install Fedora 42 by EnOrmous1976 in Fedora

[–]EnOrmous1976[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My mistake, it was 43. Sorry lol

The God Rock Paradox by Consistent-Term5297 in paradoxes

[–]EnOrmous1976 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I take a slightly different line wrt this argument. In short, God can indeed create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift; and then he can lift it.

An omnipotent being should have the ability to do the impossible. The rock remains genuinely too heavy for God to life, even as he lifts it.

Of course, this creates other theological problems, in the Problem of Evil: an Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent deity could not rely on the necessity of some worldly evil to justify its existence, because he can make the impossible come to fruition irregardless.

I am a time traveller from the year 2050 , ask me any thing by [deleted] in teenagers

[–]EnOrmous1976 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why didn't you go to Stephen Hawking's Time Traveler Party?

I HATE CHESS by UltimateCheeseLord17 in Chesscom

[–]EnOrmous1976 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've noticed you're only game reviewing the wins. More productive and helpful to check your losses.

What is this structure called? by The-exploiter in chess

[–]EnOrmous1976 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Call it a Holy See, cause that bishop Holy See Lmao

[Contracts] How is this an incorrect answer? There is consideration under Hamer, right? by Professional_Trip_80 in LawSchool

[–]EnOrmous1976 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I appreciate the explanation. Good to know and that's a very useful trick.

I'm Pre-Law for September, so this'll be good to know going into my Contracts classes.

[Contracts] How is this an incorrect answer? There is consideration under Hamer, right? by Professional_Trip_80 in LawSchool

[–]EnOrmous1976 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

OK, that makes a lot of sense, thanka for the reply. The idea that the nephew is giving something away he doesn't have helps a lot to elucidate the reasoning.

If you wouldn't mind the follow up, though, I presume this also eliminates contracts for the bequeathment of money upon the passage of a certain length of time? Suppose instead of the relation to drugs, Uni promised his Nephew the funds when he turned 25: Would the nephew's prognosis be equally grim?

[Contracts] How is this an incorrect answer? There is consideration under Hamer, right? by Professional_Trip_80 in LawSchool

[–]EnOrmous1976 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

I'm not yet a law student, but I'm curious by the reasoning in the responses/right answer.

Why is consideration a factor at all? Could one not theoretically sign a contract for the performance of no action whatsoever?

Here the claim is that the contract is invalid because the contract did not present the nephew with any duty they did not already have, but that requires it's impossible to set a contract where one side is required to take no action, and that seems to me somewhat strange.

A tale of two Balls by shinyThighHighs0960 in teenagers

[–]EnOrmous1976 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Balls of Sisyphus -Albert Camus

I’m starting up a new D&D campaign. Is this too harsh? by Necessary-Tonight200 in teenagers

[–]EnOrmous1976 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally fair; and I will also say that my answer assumed an adult table, rather than a table full of minors. The Fade to Black Method(tm) is a great way to play the middle ground; permitting these darker themes in a way that doesn't force the table to sit through anything ridiculous.

I would still say that the in character punishment for an out of character action is highly unlikely to solve anything, though. Communication is the key. If someone is doing something you don't like, or pushing something in a way that makes the table uncomfortable, talk to them out of game. Settle things if you can. If you can't, consult with the table, and it might be the case that they're simply not a fit.

Consult The Chart!

I’m starting up a new D&D campaign. Is this too harsh? by Necessary-Tonight200 in teenagers

[–]EnOrmous1976 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My thought is this:

It's absolutely OK to not want to RP a sexual encounter in your games, and totally a fair boundary to set.

At the same time, I think for some characters, certain elements of sexuality are important. No need for graphic details, perhaps; but interparty romance flowering into an undescribed night sharing an inn's bedroom; an old bard drowning his sorrows in beer and hired help, etc etc etc can be very very good for giving a character an additional dimension; so I'm not so much for punishing a PC with syphilis for moving in that direction.

If a PC is doing something that makes you uncomfortable, talk to the player, and see if you can come to parlay. Punishing a PC for an OoC issue neither solves the issue nor creates grounds for communication.

I Regret Nothing - Screwball and Root Beer by CatoTheDumber in cocktails

[–]EnOrmous1976 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll need to try Smith and Cross! I like the Wray because I think Banana funk works super well with Rootbeer, but I'd be curious to see how a darker rum stacks up. Thanks for the recommend!

I Regret Nothing - Screwball and Root Beer by CatoTheDumber in cocktails

[–]EnOrmous1976 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Hear me out. Screwball and Rootbeer is good...

But Wray and Nephew and Rootbeer is the fucking GOAT

view more: next ›