Being able to take multiple of the same class is also nice. One thing that was annoying in vermintide is if you’re playing with friends and two or more people want to play the same character (Bardin and Saltzpyre were common for us).

While I agree that we need more of the rules codified in law, the law hasn’t exactly stopped them from doing a lot of stuff either.

The developing news part does complicate things quite a bit. From what I have seen of the discussion, it’s not that they intend to counteract the bias (though perhaps they do and are just hiding behind other arguments), but that they believe there is sufficient reliable sources calling it a genocide and insufficient reputable sources to contest it in the lede (instead saving it for later in the article).

As you say, the Nazis would certainly have contested the relevant genocide claims, but that’s exactly why the editors of Wikipedia have placed less weight on government sources. Whether this bar of “sufficient reliable sources” is in the right place is a separate matter, but these matters are resolved through the RFCs they have. Wales’ statement came directly after such an RFC was held looking to reopen the conversation that was just closed, seemingly in disregard of it. If this statement had been made as part of that RFC, then it probably would have been received more positively.

Thanks for finding that, I’m at the airport so was being a bit lazy, though unless I’m looking at the wrong place it says 34 UN countries have recognized it as of 2025.

After briefly browsing the neutrality policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), it doesn’t look like stating it is a genocide is a problem except in the case there is no source or there assertion it is a genocide is “seriously contested”. So they can say “the ___ genocide [1]” and aren’t necessarily required to say “____ said ____”. What qualifies as a good source or a seriously contested claim would fall under one or more of the other policy pages I think.

I should also add that while the Gaza genocide page discusses the people who claim it isn’t a genocide, particular attention in the neutrality discussion was placed on the opening sentences of the article which call it a genocide. The first paragraph in an article faces greater scrutiny for compliance with policy because it’s the first thing read and people may not read further.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “international ruling”, but I’ll try to answer a couple of possibilities.

To quote one user from the rather lengthy thread I linked:

Unless you think we should deny the Armenian genocide, too, because only 30 or so countries have formally recognized it.

This would be one example of few nations recognizing a what is generally accepted as a genocide.

Perhaps you mean the UN specifically. Some bodies within the UN have called it a genocide, but the countries within the UN haven’t voted to declare it as such (to my knowledge). However, many argued that governments aren’t necessarily a good authority on this due to political conflicts of interest.

The ICJ has issued some warrants related to the genocide, but I don’t know if any of their language specifically called it a genocide.

I agree that Wikipedia should be neutral, but given the academic consensus and Wales’ conflicts of interest I think their neutral point of view policy is satisfied. To me it seems like an attempt to dress genocide denialism in the form of adhering to their “neutral point of view” policy, but this being my opinion is of course subjective.

EDIT: it does look like they discuss the opponents to calling it a genocide in the Political Discourse section of the wiki page

EDIT2: fixed some formatting in the quote, some of my text was accidentally included

Except less than a month before, Wikipedia concluded an RFC (request for comments) discussing this exact issue where 2/3 voted to call it a genocide. He could’ve argued for it here.

The argument primarily stemmed from governments which claimed it was not a genocide, which would also apply to other accepted genocides. He said that academics should not be considered above other sources for deciding to call it a genocide despite it being established policy on Wikipedia that academic sources are held above other sources. So basically going against well established policy which is applied to the rest of Wikipedia in direct conflict with the community consensus.

Wales also is a self described ally of Israel and has received monetary awards from them which presents a conflict of interest. If you’d like to read the whole exchange (or part of it) you can do so here. When people link to pages in the WP namespace (e.g. WP:NPOV) they are referencing established policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales

I think they’re asking about the government’s refusal to use the money for SNAP they were given in case of a shutdown. I believe it would just be sitting in a bank account somewhere.

This does not answer your question at all, but your confusion reminded me of this, which you might find amusing

https://youtu.be/FvfoS9tGYCU&t=550

Oh yeah, I had forgotten about one. It was the gymnast, right? I forget the name.

In one of the episodes where Jake is going on a date, Jadzia mentions to Ben that she has been both a mother and a father in her previous hosts. I think this was pre-facial hair Sisko, so would’ve been an earlier season.

“All colors are beautiful” -> ACAB

I also just got one, don’t know what was installed on it before as I immediately installed Linux, but I now use that key to toggle fullscreen mode on virtual box. I have to use some Microsoft applications for work so I have a windows VM. If they didn’t shove all this A”I” stuff down your throat and take away your control over your device so that they can spy on you then I’d probably still be using Windows for everything.

I think it’s more that one delivery is a drop in the bucket while achieving a constant stream of deliveries (e.g. the public puts enough pressure on their respective governments) could meaningfully address the problem

I have spoken with some of the people involved with this research previously. Beer foams aren’t really the focus here, more that it’s a complex system useful for developing the technique. Interfacial rheology and film drainage have a lot of applications. For example, this research could assist in the development of vaccine delivery methods (what should you coat the inside of your syringes with or what surfactants should you add to the vaccine to make it flow in a way that doesn’t damage the proteins or form bubbles). However, a lot of these vaccines may be difficult or expensive to prepare while beer is (relatively) cheap and readily available. Also, since the specific system doesn’t matter, why not have a little fun and use beer.

Soaps, detergents, firefighting foams, and paints might also benefit from this research.

They also seem to think criticizing their favorite show is a personal attack. Just because I don’t like a show and don’t want the (what I believe to be) mistakes in the writing repeated doesn’t mean I’m frothing at the mouth wishing death on the series or wanting it to be declared “not canon”. Why would the canon matter in a franchise that doesn’t do a ton of long term storytelling (that’s almost certainly not the proper term). Most of the series will have a lot of stories or characters that are never even mentioned again in that series, let alone other series.

Some of the comments defending the show are absurdly aggressive. Not sure if Stamets is trolling, gatekeeping, or just an asshole.

What the fuck is your problem? In their first sentence they said that the hate the series received was completely unjustified, and I was responding to indicate how I thought it was justified. And I didn’t downvote that person (in fact I upvotedthem), what they said about the bigotry and personal attacks on the actors is completely justified, and if they liked the writing then good for them.

As for the making it to season 3, I happened to be watching it with my family and made it that far because that is when the others finally lost interest.

I could have made the wording less confrontational, but I didn’t want to at the moment I wrote it. If you want to down vote me for that then go right ahead. My comment being not constructive is because I’m replying to a meme, not some grand commentary on the successes and failures of modern Star Trek.

The bigotry I agree with is stupid, and the actors are just doing what they’re paid to do, but I really did not like the massive amount personal drama in Discovery. And it feels like it repeats itself constantly because none of the characters learn anything. It feels like a lot of episodes are “let’s watch these characters repeat their previous mistakes then get angry or cry about it when they get the same result as last time”. Also the plot point where all the engines blow up is just stupid and even more of the absurd personal drama.

Given the original surviving mars’ history, I’m guessing they’ll fuck everything up with an update 6 months from now and not give the opportunity to roll back. Then a few months later they’ll release a patch to fix only some of it

Of course, how else do you think she gets to the places where Gnome Ann has gone before?

Sudoscience* it’s what sysadmins do