AndrasKrigare

I'm super curious about that hole in Texas for "dude."

I haven't heard of that being what threading is, but that threading is about shared resourcing and memory space and not any special relationship with the scheduler.

Per the wiki:

On a multiprocessor or multi-core system, multiple threads can execute in parallel, with every processor or core executing a separate thread simultaneously; on a processor or core with hardware threads, separate software threads can also be executed concurrently by separate hardware threads.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computing)

I also think you might be misunderstanding the relationship between concurrency and parallelism; they are not mutually exclusive. Something can be concurrent through parallelism, as the wiki page has (emphasis mine):

Concurrency refers to the ability of a system to execute multiple tasks through simultaneous execution or time-sharing (context switching), sharing resources and managing interactions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science)

Correct, which is why before I had said

I think OP is making a joke about python's GIL, which makes it so even if you are explicitly multi threading, only one thread is ever running at a time, which can defeat the point in some circumstances.

If what you said were true, wouldn't it make a lot more sense for OP to be making a joke about how even if the source includes multi threading, all his extra cores are wasted? And make your original comment suggesting a coding issue instead of a language issue pretty misleading?

But what you said is not correct. I just did a dumb little test

import threading 
import time

def task(name):
  time.sleep(600)

t1 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("1",))
t2 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("2",))
t3 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("3",))

t1.start()
t2.start()
t3.start()

And then ps -efT | grep python and sure enough that python process has 4 threads. If you want to be even more certain of it you can strace -e clone,clone3 python ./threadtest.py and see that it is making clone3 syscalls.

I think OP is making a joke about python's GIL, which makes it so even if you are explicitly multi threading, only one thread is ever running at a time, which can defeat the point in some circumstances.

When I was over there, everyone assumed I was Canadian. I asked a tour guide about it at one point, and he said that it's just a safer assumption: if they guess American and are wrong, Canadians can get a little offended. But if you guess Canadian and are wrong, Americans tend to just be amused.

Think about how quickly the entire WWWIII (Wizarding-World War III) would have ended if all of the good guys had simply armed up with good ol’ American hot lead. Basilisk? Let’s see how tough it is when you shoot it with a .470 Nitro Express. Worried about its Medusa-gaze? Wear night vision goggles. The image is light-amplified and re-transmitted to your eyes. You aren’t looking at it—you’re looking at a picture of it. Imagine how epic the first movie would be if Harry had put a breeching charge on the bathroom wall, flash-banged the hole, and then went in wearing NVGs and a Kevlar-weave stab-vest, carrying a SPAS-12. And have you noticed that only Europe seems to a problem with Deatheaters? Maybe it’s because Americans have spent the last 200 years shooting deer, playing GTA: Vice City, and keeping an eye out for black helicopters over their compounds. Meanwhile, Brits have been cutting their steaks with spoons.

Remember: gun-control means that Voldemort wins. God made wizards and God made muggles, but Samuel Colt made them equal. Now I know what you’re going to say: “But a wizard could just disarm someone with a gun!” Yeah, well they can also disarm someone with a wand (as they do many times throughout the books/movies). But which is faster: saying a spell or pulling a trigger?

Avada Kedavra, meet Avtomat Kalashnikova. Imagine Harry out in the woods, wearing his invisibility cloak, carrying a .50bmg Barrett, turning Deatheaters into pink mist, scratching a lightning bolt into his rifle stock for each kill. I don’t think Madam Pomfrey has any spells that can scrape your brains off of the trees and put you back together after something like that. Voldemort’s wand may be 13.5 inches with a Phoenix-feather core, but Harry’s would be 0.50 inches with a tungsten core. Let’s see Voldy wave his at 3,000 feet per second. Better hope you have some Essence of Dittany for that sucking chest wound. I can see it now...Voldemort roaring with evil laughter and boasting to Harry that he can’t be killed, since he is protected by seven Horcruxes, only to have Harry give a crooked grin, flick his cigarette butt away, and deliver what would easily be the best one-liner in the entire series: “Well then I guess it’s a good thing my 1911 holds 7+1.” And that is why Harry Potter should have carried a 1911.

Ah gotcha, I was wondering where I might've lost the thread. I would agree with everything you said there. But, putting a pin in that and going back to your original post, what are the lore changes that you dislike? I understand what you said regarding inter-species complications, but feel like I might have lost what you were saying after that.

Honestly, I'm a bit more confused now. I definitely agree that humans have a tendency to dehumanize others, but I wouldn't consider this a good or healthy thing that we should just accept. So having a ruleset that says, canonically, "this group of sentient creatures is inherently evil" and not "this group of sentient creatures is believed to be evil by this other group" you are encouraging the players to take an unnuanced view of the world.

However, as a gamemaster you have to allow your players to make two choices:

1. Are the monsters we are fighting people or not?

2. Does my character agree with me?

Isn't this what the lore changes encourage, by not making a factual statement about the groups, so the players should ask themselves this question on a case-by-case basis and not simply based on what type of creature they are? And I'm not sure how the changes would prevent the narrative approach you describe. Saying that goblins and orcs live in human-like societies doesn't prevent you from telling a story that's analogous to what has happened between human societies.

Maybe we're working off of different data points, what WotC material are specifically referring to for the changes?

A game about combat needs a world full of things for the players to mow down but also not feel bad about killing, and sometimes you need a bunch of Violent Dungeon Fodder that can think and plan and make tactical decisions and potentially be negotiated with.

I'm a bit confused by this. Why not have them be any other species, or combination of them? If they're capable of being negotiated with shouldn't the players feel as bad about killing them as anyone else? I feel like "self-defense" can do a lot of heavy lifting in dungeon crawls, I've never really noticed my players feeling bad about killing bandit dwarves or whatnot.

Klaus is a newer one, but has joined the tradition rotation

One note on "sick" being slang for "good": that particular slang started in the 80s, and some of the younger generation consider it to be old person slang.