I appreciate the invitation, but I've already found my forever home. It's got variable spell effects, variable magic systems, and tools to build spells, and magic systems, from scratch.

I have no trouble accepting that mana exists in quanta. What troubles me is the idea that mana clusters into meta-quanta like spell slots. Also that a spell like, say, Fireball, is totally unviable except with a specific meta-quantum of mana, at which point it does 8d6 damage.

Shouldn't it be a simple matter to cast a weaker Fireball with less mana, or a more powerful one with more? I get that you need magic to summon fire, and a certain amount to summon 8d6-worth. But all or nothing? Why shouldn't a 1st level slot summon 1d6 with a 5ft radius, a 2nd level slot 4d6 with a 10ft radius? One would imagine a gradient, even quantized, between Fire Bolt and Fireball.

Maybe, what's it to ya?

It's some kind of leveled spell joke I'm too GURPS to understand. Am I to believe that magic only works at arbitrary discrete levels? Surely any competent mage can vary the intensity of their spells with the mana they invest, no?

Uh, I did read the article.

I haven't looked further into this event than the information provided in the linked article, which isn't much.

Ticketmaster monopolized tickets, Live Nation monopolized venues. They merged. Market economies enable efficient price discovery, when there's competition.

I'd worry more about a big sneeze

There aren't that many asshole cats, but all cats are assholes sometimes.

I'm going to inject some unpopular nuance here, so I'll preface by admitting that I haven't looked further into this event than the information provided in the linked article, which isn't much. Nevertheless, a few points:

No system is perfect, including exclusively human drivers. Obviously zero accidents is ideal, but as you said, road ragin' car-brained behavior is typical. How many people are killed every year by human drivers?

Obviously driverless system development should aspire to dynamic reactivity comparable to the best human driver. But when running a cost-benefit analysis for driverless adoption it's worth considering if, normalizing each by their respective total hours-on-the-road, the mistakes made by driverless cars due to rigid adhesion to traffic laws outnumber the mistakes made by drivers due to their own flagrant disobedience.

Presumably if you're wearing tailored pants, you're not in a situation that's likely to result in 80s comedy style boner hijinks. And if you are, you have the foresight to take other wardrobe precautions.

Technically, yes. However there are circumstances some places in the lower brackets where making more can disqualify you from welfare benefits. In those circumstances, an increase which is too small to compensate for the loss of benefits would be, effectively, a net loss.

Obviously though, that's not really an issue at the 400k bracket.

Saving don't turn off the pow