Only 1 concurrent player per copy in the family library. So to play together you’d still have to both buy the game.

This is the correct answer. Pi is known. What it’s decimal expansion looks like is irrelevant. It’s 1 in base Pi.

That and of course Slay The Spire, IMHO peak rogue like deck builder.

You can turn down everything to minimal (so maximal battery life) and have a perfect playing experience with that.

Yes.

War gaming can be fun, but I don’t think DnD is especially geared toward it

Isn’t like 90% of the rules for DnD just rules for combat and treasure? Literally every single class in DnD is a combat class. And when people talk about their DnD characters they say “I played this Dragonborn Cleric…” or “Multiclassed Tiefling Mage/Rouge” and not “I played this Dwarf that had really good proficiency in Persuasion and ‘Use Rope’”. [Btw is ‘Use Rope’ still a skill in newer DnD editions?].

There is no issue with the source other than it not the new york times or the washington post or the bbc

1. NYT, WP or BBC are also suspect sources, especially when it comes to the Palestine conflict. You will not find me saying anything else.
2. Issues with the source you cited (that don’t involve it’s Hezbollah affiliation):
   • It’s not the primary source (that appears to be the Haaretz article, but I can’t confirm that, since that is paywalled)
   • It gets the name of one of the parties involved in the conflict wrong (it consistently refers to the IDF as IOF (replacing “Defense” with “Occupation”). I get why they do it (the IDF claims to “defend” an area that they are actually occupying), but that’s not how you do journalism. Nobody thinks that North Korea is a democratic republic, but any news article about it will still refer to it as “DPRK - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea”. Because that’s its name.

So pointing out that the source you posted is biased and potentially unreliable is fine. You citing another source (even one cited in the article itself) is completely par for the course. Hell, now I really would like to know, why you chose to post a secondary source when you had the primary source avaiable to you?

Isn’t that how discourse is supposed to work though? If there are issues with the credibility of a source, it’s fine to point those out. And then you respond with a different source to which the criticism does not apply.

Where is the issue?

It depends. If you are the owner of a repository with multiple contributors and have rules for code review, then this makes sense. You create the PR so that someone else can say “Yep, meets our standards/tests/release schedule”.

But if you start doing stuff like this regularly you probably want to migrate the repository to a dedicated account that exists to own that repository, rather than it be your own.