Nah, I’m in the U.S. and also have minimal interest in betting. I have more interest in how people bet because it’s so interesting

My boss asked me what the odds were on the Tyson v Paul fight were and this is the best way I knew how to look

Update: told my wife and she said “oh I already watched the trailer” before I could even finish describing the movie. So we’re all in

Yeah, for me part of the fun of Yu-Gi-Oh was having really cool cards in your deck that was a big moment when you summoned them (I was a kid, times were simple)

But now newer decks summon and tribute like 8 monsters in a single turn, it’s outrageous, and if you don’t know every card by heart you’ll just be stun locked trying to figure out why you got destroyed

That’s why I prefer to play legacy decks if at all

https://youtu.be/u15HmEMp2Qc?si=XOrVXy0Qu8Jn9ghA (Piped)

I guess there are trucks in World of Warcraft

My wife and I have a winter tradition to watch a Christmas movie every weekend morning, so we may have to add this to the list

Although I have no idea where one even watches a Hallmark movie specifically… We usually just look in the “free” section of our smart TV or my Plex server

Article mentions the Bill of Rights, and I haven’t really looked at that since middle school, so I wanted to brush up.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Emphasis mine.

Definitely a very short passage and I’m no lawyer. I could see arguments for how this does not disallow a state to mandate a religious text be included somewhere.

However, I’m a staunch believer in the separation of Church and state so I’m leaning more towards the spirit of the law rather than the letter here - seems clear that religion of any kind should never be mandated

Also I cannot believe any state congressional time was wasted on such a pointless rule. I would be astounded if this had any measurable effects on any child beyond them remembering a few more of the commandments than their peers. But morally I imagine there will be no difference

How is Borderlands selling so well? I got the impression it was a flop

I was thinking the ghost tower or cave music from R/B/Y

Yes I think that’s the correct interpretation

Just added this to my browser this morning, coincidentally! Not sure what thread it was, but I thought it was this one. Thanks for the link though, it’ll be a big help

Thank you very much! I wasn’t aware of these guidelines so it’s interesting to read

I think the notability is a little hard to define, so I could see some discussion happening, especially about more minute details like individual items in games. But it seems like, based on the existence of a Krillin page, that there is at least some precedent for somewhat broader topics

I see what you’re saying, but also I don’t think those analogies are necessarily fair. I don’t think putting Yoshi’s birthday on Wikipedia instead of Yoshipedia is quite as critical as a central bank failure

We’re on Lemmy, which is an aggregation source just like Wikipedia. Some knowledge is only stored here, while other knowledge is an external link. It’s not a bad thing to be a central point of information as long as it is a community-driven process with high levels of transparency, like Wikipedia.

Lemmy, however, works differently from Wikipedia or Reddit in that multiple services work together to be that aggregation source, which is great, and Wikipedia doesn’t have that, which is not great. So that of course could be better in an ideal world, and I would bet there is a federated Wiki service already out there

But, I’m not talking about life changing information here, I’m talking about what happened to Krillin in episode 700 of Dragon Ball Super, I think it’s okay if that information lives in one central location - especially since you can always just watch the episode again to verify

Do you happen to know where in the rules it would list the “level of relevance”. I did a cursory read through of the content guidelines but I didn’t see anything that would necessarily exclude descriptions of specific video game content, levels, or assets, but I’m no master at Wikipedia - I can’t say I’ve contributed much beyond donations.

Also I did mention those unique features some wikis have. For example, the Old School RuneScape Wiki has some really great calculators, maps, and data collectors, so I’m very happy with those. But for less popular ones where nobody is putting in the work to make the wiki exemplary feels like we may as well save time and not give Fandom money by using Wikipedia

And look and feel I would say is good unless it’s a fandom, and then all the look and feel in the world doesn’t justify those ads

One thing that recently had me pondering was why do we need separate wikis, why not just add the information to Wikipedia? Unless your wiki has some feature Wikipedia doesn’t support, it just seems to provide a background image and ads.

For example, I was looking up some Dragonball information, and their wiki was really sparse and didn’t answer my question. So I randomly tried Wikipedia and it had all my answers

My only guess is some Wikipedia usage rules that say not to but I find that unlikely

Damn they went hard on Copilot on this release

Oh awesome! I’m looking forward to this one

White.

I think because when I was young I associated it with angels and purity and I wanted to be a good person.

Now I just think it looks crisp and clean and it’s always been “my” color in games

So I give you articles that are not only referencing the exact version of addiction you want and mention a support group that you keep referencing and you dismiss them because it’s inconvenient. I fit the references to something you might find convincing. I didn’t find sources that convinced me I found sources that might convince you.

But please, provide your own evidence, as you referenced earlier. I have provided mine, and I await yours.

You have literally said nothing at this point beyond referencing outdated version of the manual and anecdotal evidence.

Come on, now you’re just being rude and dismissive. I’m trying to come together here and come to an understanding.

I have evidence to support it

What, where? You’ve sited the DSM-V and anecdotes, the former disagrees with you and the latter is opinion

Cite one.

Here’s two:

News article using the term “addiction”:

Inside Caffeine Addicts Anonymous: ‘It Controlled Me Enough’ which also mentions a support group, like the ones you reference: Caffeine Addicts Anonymous

Scientific article using the term “addiction”:

Caffeine Intoxication and Addiction

Whether or not you agree with them, the point is that it is commonly used.