Aha, thanks! I guess that concludes this thread, as I don’t really expect to get a dev chiming in explaining why.

It’s not my preferred way of handling it but I don’t have the energy to make a fuss. I guess if I click a link that needs to be http, I’ll copy it to a browser, and if I post one I’ll remind others to do the same. Probably won’t come up often enough to care about.

At least you’ve satisfied my curiosity as to what was going on 😀

Edit: I was repeatedly told while trying to post this comment that the request timeout had expired. When the error stopped appearing, I had posted 4 copies of this message. I have deleted them but I apologize if they still spam your inbox as [deleted] or something.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Thanks for looking into this thoroughly, and for correctly noting what’s causing the situation with my specific example.

I contacted Two9A about his weird configuration before I made my original post, but have yet to get a reply from them. The specific example of xkcdsw is a separate issue unrelated to jerboa.

My main question was what is causing http links opened on lemmy through jerboa to redirect to https links - whether that is being done by the app or the instance or what. If it is the intended behavior of the jerboa app, I’m curious as to why it doesn’t leave the protocol up to the commenter.

Did you click the links before telling me that’s not how it works though? Other people are reporting the same result. I also get the same result on both my phone and desktop. Seems like two clicks would be less trouble than finding sources to back up a condescending and inaccurate response.

Here is some information supporting the fact that URLs can work that way (although the two links you quoted but did not click on from my original post already demonstrate that): https://superuser.com/questions/792202/different-website-at-https-then-at-http

Edit: bear in mind that to reproduce the behavior, you might need to type the http into your browser manually if you are using jerboa.

You need to prompt your party to roleplay as non-idiots and think through their solution step-by-step. Of course, it’s possible your party is also running an outdated model.

I was going to say that’s actually a G K Chesterton quote, but it turns out it’s more complicated than that. Neil Gaiman himself said it was from Chesterton (when quoting it at the start of Coraline), but he wrote it from memory and didn’t double check, so the original is worded differently. At least, that’s how my quick googling claims the paraphrase happened. The misquote is pithier than the original so… is it now a Gaiman quote, even though it originates as an attempted Chesterton quote?

As far as I can tell, the passage he was thinking of was:

Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon.

• G K Chesterton, Tremendous Trifles (1909)

they probably fell into an empty enclosure one day and the zookeepers just rolled with it and put up a sign

Are capybaras as chill as their reputation suggests, or is that more a feature of cases that are used to captivity? If the memes/images/videos are to be believed, I’d expect to be able to just wander up to one in the wild and have it respond like a well-socialized pet dog.

I think the modern pushback comes from people who get their understanding of technology from science fiction. SF has always (mis)used AI to mean sapient computers.

“Inconvenience” would be the verb for causing an inconvenience. So in the sentence you’re going for, “inconvene” would have to be replaced with the passive “be inconvenienced” (“we’ve gotta be inconvenienced and grovel to google a bit”). I don’t believe we have a separate word for “endure an inconvenience”, although it seems like the kind of thing some languages might have a single word for. Stylistically I’d probably restructure the sentence to “we’ve gotta put up with the inconvenience” rather than just using the passive verb, but yeah.

I think you’d most often see this verb in the stock phrase “Sorry to inconvenience you”.

saint enfer

When you say 2.5, do you mean 3.5? 3.5 was an actual edition, still widely played (what I started on, even though 5e existed at the time). I’ve heard some people refer to late 2nd edition (I think particularly after the combat and tactics optional material) as 2.5e, but only in a very informal sense as an acknowledgment of how much one of those later supplements changed the game. Second edition is a hard sell for a modern audience, as you have to think about THAC0, to-hit tables, weird saves vs specific things, etc. It’s what Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2 run on.

3.5 is much more intuitive than second edition in terms of its core mechanics, but had a huge amount of supplementary material released for it. It’s still a detailed and crunchy system, and usually if you hear people talking about crazy character builds where they figured out how to become omnipotent at level 5 or used metamagic to wipe out a 200 mile radius with a level 4 spell, they’re probably talking about 3.5. It’s also what pathfinder is based on - you can basically play pathfinder 1 and d&d 3.5 if you’ve learned to play one of them, they’re not identical but they’re closer than any actual editions.

5 is much less crunchy than 3.5 or 2, and easier to learn, while still having good systems in place. I’ve heard it referred to as “everyone’s second favorite system”, on the basis that it’s so well-rounded (of course, in practice it’s plenty of people’s favorite or only system). I think it leans a bit more on dungeon master (referee) interpretation/judgment, which might make it less viable for a video game, but clearly Baldur’s Gate 3 works just fine using it. I’ve been curious since BG3 was announced how they went about fully mechanising parts of it, but haven’t yet gotten around to checking it out.

If you’re new to tabletop RPGs and just looking for inspiration and only looking at one system, 5 is probably your best bet - and if you run into part of it and wonder how this could translate to a computer context, you can always check what BG3 did for reference.

Actually, now that I’ve said that though, 4e is worth mentioning too. It’s usually not in the discussion for most tabletop group discussions, because of how video gamey it is, but a) that works in your favor here, and b) it does introduce some good stealable ideas, in addition to the video-gamey combat overhaul. Notably skill challenges and minion-type enemies. Another comment already gave a good discussion of 4e though, I just wanted to acknowledge that it’s a decent contender in spite of what I said about 5e being your best bet. The only reason it’s an afterthought is that it’s sort of the black sheep of the d&d family for tabletop purposes.

Edit: you know what, just since I ended up addressing every mainline numbered edition except 1, I’ll give a quick note on that. It’s basically 2 but worse. The change from 1st to 2nd was a much smaller change than all the other ones, so people basically treat them as the same thing. But 2nd edition is the finished one. It’s a bit more complicated than that and there’s a few other versions from around that time, plus modern attempts to replicate the feel of that time, but I feel like for your purposes nothing before 3.5 is likely to be worth thinking too hard about.

I’m open to follow-up questions if any part of this rambling comment needs elaboration or clarification. I intended to just clarify the 2.5 vs 3.5 thing but it kind of got away from me.

I have a fold3 as well, personally have found the battery life to be fine. Maybe because my previous phone was 6 years old when I switched so I had low standards for battery. Although, I definitely don’t need to charge 3 times a day.

If nobody else had said fold3, I was gonna post: I have a fold3 and I love it. I can see how people could see it as a dumb gimmick, but for me it can legitimately function as my main portable media device (ebooks, internet, keeping notes, video content, sudoku, emulated games if I attach a controller, showing people pictures, etc) in a way that a regular phone would feel way too cramped for, while also just fitting in my pocket so I can take it everywhere without a second thought - which would be a much bigger pain with a regular tablet. It’s just really nice having a full-sized book in my jeans pocket in a waiting room, as a painless part of my “everyday carry”.

Downside (for me) is people sometimes see me fold/unfold it and want to start a conversation about how weird it is, when I’m an extreme introvert and just wanted some silent device time. I guess this might be an upside for extroverts, but then they might be less interested in being glued to a large pocket-screen in the first place.

deleted by creator

Literally Tolkien’s perspective on worldbuilding. Authors are “subcreators”, doing little versions of what their creator did, having been made in his image.

deleted by creator

Pro wrestling is fake (or, is all just fiction, like a TV show or a theater performance). Wrestling and boxing are not fake.

w00t, j00 = t3h h4x0r roflcopter