As it is, you only see new comments if you scroll past the post again (and your client has refreshed it) or if you open it directly. If your client hasn’t updated the comment count or if you refresh your feed and the post falls off, you’ll never see it anyway.

A “Watch” feature would solve this better. If you watch a post, you get aggregated notifications for edits and comments on the post. If you watch a comment, you get aggregated notifications for replies to it or any of its children.

By aggregated notifications, I mean that you’d get one notification that said “The post you watched has been edited; 5 new comments” rather than a notification for each new comment.

Then, in addition to exposing a “Watch” action on posts and comments, clients could also enable users to automatically hide posts that are watched, either by marking them as hidden or by hiding watched posts without updates.

If the latter approach were taken, notifications might not even be necessary - the post could just get added back into the user’s feed when changes were made. It would result in a similar experience to forums, where new activity in a topic would bump it to the front, but it would only impact the people who were watching it.

You can kinda get that behavior by sorting your feed by Active, but this could be used with other sorting methods.

That isn’t what it means at all.

The way to do this is to use a mailing list that only allows a limited number of people to send emails to it. You could do this automatically when someone clicked a “Prohibit Reply All” button, but such a feature is unnecessary if you use mailing lists configured that way by default.

Your comment makes no sense.

The article you posted is from 2023 and PERA was basically dropped. However, this article talks about PREVAIL, which would prevent patents from being challenged except by the people who were sued by the patent-holder, and it’s still relevant.

The rules text says it creates an area of darkness, and with your interpretation, it doesn’t, which means your interpretation is wrong. Yes, the ability could be written more clearly, but the logic for a reasonable way for it to function follows pretty cleanly. Your interpretation is not RAW or RAI.

There’s a reply on RPG StackExchange that covers a similar line of logic to what I wrote above.

Remember that Fifth Edition D&D is intentionally not written with the same exacting precision as games like M:tG. The game doesn’t have an explicit definition of magical darkness, but it’s pretty clear that the intent is for magical to trump mundane (when it comes to sources of light and darkness). Even the Specific Beats General section says that most of the exceptions to general rules are due to magic.

If you have normal darkness everywhere, there isn’t a reason to use it, but you don’t always have darkness everywhere. In fact, you generally don’t.

Not all monsters with darkvision have access to light sources. Even if they do, they may need an action to use it or may be out of range. A torch or the light cantrip only has a 40’ range. If you collaborate on positioning with the caster, you can basically set yourself up to have advantage every turn thanks to the darkness, since as a ranged attacker you don’t have to stay within 40’ of your enemies.

Also, Gloom Stalkers can’t see through Darkness like Warlocks can, so this effect is useful to them in a way that the Darkness spell isn’t.

That all said, Tricksy wouldn’t do anything if it didn’t block nonmagical illumination, so it’s reasonable to run it as though it does. Sure, it still wouldn’t block even a cantrip, but it would block torches, lanterns, the sun, etc…

And running it as though it doesn’t block nonmagical darkness results in nonsensical behavior. You’re in a torchlit chamber and use the ability - now there’s a cube of darkness, blocking the light of all four nonmagical torches. If you move one of those torches away and back, why would it suddenly pierce the magical darkness? If it wouldn’t, why would a new nonmagical light source?

Maybe they just wanted to improve it for Gloom Stalker Rangers?

Game Porting Toolkit is designed for developers … but any consumer can use it to play non-Mac games, and it works surprisingly well.

Huh, TIL

I recommend checking out Friendly Social Browser.

Paired with allowing people who own the original to upgrade for $10 (and I’m assuming something similar in the UK) when they’re charging $50 for the remaster if you don’t have the original, that makes sense. They’re just closing a loophole.

I’d much rather they double the existing game’s price than for them to charge $25-$30 for the upgrade or to even just not have one outright.

It sucks for anyone who’d been planning to play the original and who just hadn’t bought it yet, but used prices for discs should still be low, so only the subset of those people who have disc-less machines are really impacted.

The main disadvantage I can think of would involve a situation where your email (and possibly also other personal data) was exposed without your name attached. It’d be possible for your DLN and/or SSN (or the equivalents for other countries) and email to be exposed without your name being exposed, for example. This wouldn’t have to be a breach - it could be that, for privacy purposes, certain people working with accounts simply don’t get visibility to names.

It’s also feasible that an employee might have access to your full name but only to partially masked email addresses. So if your email is site-firstname-lastname@example.com and they see site-firstname-****@domain.com, they can make an educated guess as to your full email address.

Also, if your email were exposed by itself and someone tried to phish you, it would be more effective if they knew your name.