I wonder how well I would manage in a 2e world after years of familiarity with 5e, and how difficult it would be to adjust back to 5e afterward.

Do you mean that survival is hard at those levels? Were you by any chance playing a wizard?

Having implemented parts of the Matrix protocol myself, based on the spec, I can say this without a doubt: This “paper” is a sloppy, misleading, confused mess. Spreading it around does a disservice to the community.

Matrix has plenty of room for improvement, but that doesn’t mean it should be avoided. It offers a unique and very useful set of features, and its security model is already good enough for a great many people’s day-to-day needs. And it is improving, little by little. I expect improvements would come faster if more organizations donated money to the project.

Thanks for the write-up. I’ve been pondering Baldur’s Gate 1 or 2 in part because I think some of BG3’s characters first appeared in the earlier games.

Which edition of D&D rules does the first game follow?

Unfortunately, the TVs could still be programmed to opportunistically use open wifi, from a neigbor or passing car or smartphone for example.

And if manufacturers haven’t already included cell network radios, they could easily do so.

Repeat after me: Prefer dumb displays over smart TVs.

I’m skeptical of Padmé thinking “videogames” means dude-bro shooters.

I hear MapQuest refused.

There’s also a very good chance that early Half-Life2: Episode 3 builds are in there, but at the time of writing, nobody has found anything related to the legendary sequel that never came. There’s 12 TB after all, so it’s going to take a long time for the community to sift through all the data and work out what it all means.

In other words, this headline is pure speculative click bait.

City councils often vote for things that are opposed by most of the community.

Flock surveillance cameras come to mind.

Also, there’s no need to be snarky.

Why does any community still agree to do it?

What makes you think the California community agreed to do it?

work on x11 stopped ages ago.

The most recent release was last week.

https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-announce/2026-August/003741.html

See also: Motorola Mobility, which is not the successor of the now-defunct Motorola Inc. The headquarters of this separate company is in the USA, but it’s owned by a Chinese company.

(For context, the upcoming GrapheneOS phone is a Motorola Mobility device.)

Possibly better than doing searches directly through Google, but keep this in mind:

Startpage is owned and operated by Surfboard Holding BV, which is majority owned by System1, an American internet advertising company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startpage

Some cities have groups participating in a National Week of Action Against ALPRs, with events scheduled this week:

https://noalprs.com/

Your original “pick two” comment implies that you can pick “anonymous” + “free of bots”, or “available to everybody” + “free of bots”. I can’t think of any system that would satisfy those.

The former can be had on a system accessible only by a restricted group of people, through terminals that have no automation interfaces. Think of a local private library with a bulletin board: Only members can enter, and once inside, anyone can post using the provided tools, but there are no tools that bots could use, and there’s nothing connecting an individual to what they post on the board. Of course, a system like this would not be available to everyone; it wouldn’t work as an internet service, for example.

The latter can be had by requiring an access token issued to each user. Bots could then be either ejected quickly by revoking their owner’s token when discovered, or prevented early by requiring all access to be through public terminals that have no automation interfaces. Of course, any system that issues an access token to an individual cannot be anonymous if revocation is to be meaningful.

The government would keep track of whether or not they issued you an ID,
The token/ID system adds anonymity

I wish that were possible, but no, it is not. If a government (or any other authority) keeps track of whether they issue someone an ID, then they must also have the ability to connect IDs to individuals. Such an arrangement can only be anonymous if everyone involved is a good-faith actor choosing not to abuse that ability, which history demonstrates is not a realistic assumption.

but your identity is tied to it for the duration

This doesn’t disprove what I wrote, as it’s not anonymous.

you can provide pseudoanonymity,

Pseudoanonymity is not anonymity, regardless of how any given person chooses to define that nebulous term.

My “pick two” stands.

As for humans passing their token to a bot, that’s not really solvable by any system.

Indeed. Which is (part of) why I wrote, “pick two”.

But the human is still the one with the authority, and chooses to delegate to the bot.

Which is what we already have today.

but your identity is tied to it for the duration

Then it’s not anonymous.

If anonymous and available to everyone, what would prevent people from acquiring an ID and passing it on to a bot, or from acquiring multiples?

Epic showed its true colors when it was caught collecting Steam account data from people’s systems. (This was no surprise coming from the creators of Epic Online Services, or from a CEO like Tim Sweeney, of course.)

Their software won’t be welcome on my systems even if they do make a Linux version.