I'd say your instincts are good, and that this is too many rituals to give out. In fact, this looks more like a list of all rituals than a player's wishlist of rituals.

You've got some good advice here on how many to allow, so let me take a different tack here and give some advice for handling a lot of rituals at once.

The foremost important rule of a ritual is that it takes ten minutes longer to cast a spell as a ritual than to simply cast the spell.

Many of these spells have a duration of one hour. Say you have three rituals going: comprehend languages, floating disk, and unseen servant. Every hour you would have to rest for 30 minutes to refresh your spells, then you'd have another 30 minutes of adventuring before they begin to expire.

So if your player wants to have the rituals active and ready, the entire party only travels at half speed. I'd have NPCs take the piss out of them and I'd encourage the players to do the same (in character, and all in good fun)

Time is important to you as a DM because you can use it to put pressure on the party. You can do this narratively by imposing deadlines, or taking NPCs hostage, or what have you. However, you can also impose this mechanically by having random encounters.

As the DM you get to decide how to do random encounters. The most common rule I see is to roll once per hour to see if there's an encounter.

Now, a lot of this sounds like you might be punishing the player for using too many rituals. That's not strictly true though. You're enabling the player to make choices, and choices have consequences. Enforcing these rules are a way that you can be the Yes DM you want to be while also keeping the power level grounded.

You know what would be way better than a symbol for "healthy" food would be requiring manufacturers to label food that fails to meet standards as "unhealthy." Bonus points if you tax it to death so it's no longer economically viable to sell garbage and label it "food"

Like, shit, the public perception is that I can't afford healthy food anyway. But at least if the unhealthy food was also labelled it'd be easier to avoid

Subway has previously made headlines in legal news because their footlongs were under a foot long, and because their 100% chicken was half soy. If anything, they deserve some extra scrutiny.

Love to see this

It's the line of best fit, not the line of good fit

If you don't like it, don't press that button

As I'm getting older, I'm definitely starting to appreciate that I just can't see shit. If the game's going for an ultra-realistic environment, then there's just so much more visual clutter that I need help picking things out.

In my opinion, it's just an accessibility feature. Those are always nicer to have than to not. But if you're a purist, or you don't have any problem finding things, then I'd also hope you'd be able to disable it.

If your organization is such a clusterfuck that you can't figure out how to open a PDF, then I'm going to consider that a bullet dodged.

I once had my employer perform a wellness check when I was having a mental health episode.

I was working remotely, but my mental health was in the toilet. I had a candid conversation with my supervisor where I told him I needed some time off because I had been feeling suicidal. He was an absolute bro, told me I was doing a good job, and that I earned some time off. He agreed that our conditions and the demands from management were absurd. He tells me to just take some time, and he'll clear the way with HR.

Well, I'm logging off my computer when I get a call from his boss. He's asking why I'm suddenly taking some time off. I tell him that I haven't been feeling well, but he keeps badgering me for a specific reason. I tell him that I'm very vulnerable and don't want to disclose a reason. That's between me and my doctor.

Well he keeps pressing and he tells me that, "sharing our vulnerabilities is what fosters trust." So I'm like fine, you really want to know, this job and your management style are making me suicidal.

Tone immediately shifts. He's going into full damage control cover-your-ass mode. He tells me that I should consider a different career if I'm not up to the task. I'm already having like the worst day of my life (so far) and I start to have a panic attack.

I tell him you know what, it's not his business and I'm going to call my doctor. Before I can get on the phone with my doctor, HR is calling me. They tell me they have to get hold of my emergency contact to make sure I'm not currently killing myself. I tell them my emergency contact is out of town (unrelated), so they say they have to call the police. I ask her not to, there's no risk to myself and things have been taken out of context. HR insists that it's company policy.

So while I'm hyperventilating because my boss pressed me for more details than I was comfortable sharing about my health, they sent a man with a gun to my house to check on me.

I understand that the company is protecting its liability or whatever. But I really felt that my rights had been violated somehow. The police are not suitable to intervene in a mental health episode. I had a new fear that I wouldn't be able to calm down when the police arrived and I'd end up shot or something.

TLDR - I know this post is fake, but companies really do feel like they own their employees. A wellness check from your employer is absolutely bullshit, but that won't stop them from trying.

I released a game like three years ago and it's earned $97 in that time.

I feel your pain

A lot of the criticism comes with AI results being wrong a lot of the time, while sounding convincingly correct. In software, things that appear to be correct but are subtly wrong leads to errors that can be difficult to decipher.

Imagine that your AI was trained on StackOverflow results. It learns from the questions as well as the answers, but the questions will often include snippets of code that just don't work.

The workflow of using AI resembles something like the relationship between a junior and senior developer. The junior/AI generates code from a spec/prompt, and then the senior/prompter inspects the code for errors. If we remove the junior from the equation to replace with AI, then entry level developer jobs are slashed, and at the same time people aren't getting the experience required to get to the senior level.

Generally speaking, programmers like to program (many do it just for fun), and many dislike review. AI removes the programming from the equation in favour of review.

Another argument would be that if I generate code that I have to take time to review and figure out what might be wrong with it, it might just be quicker and easier to write it correctly the first time

Business often doesn't understand these subtleties. There's a ton of money being shovelled into AI right now. Not only for developing new models, but for marketing AI as a solution to business problems. A greedy executive that's only looking at the bottom line and doesn't understand the solution might be eager to implement AI in order to cut jobs. Everyone suffers when jobs are eliminated this way, and the product rarely improves.

This tidbit is sometimes presented like it's a pro-trans win, but the truth is far from pretty.

If you get caught as a cis-gendered gay man in Iran then you're potentially facing the death penalty. In a legal move that wouldn't exist anywhere else in the world, you can plea-bargain your ding dong into a hoo-hah.

If the state is offering you a choice between mutilation or death, is it even really a choice?

Some people will tell you, "Well ackshually it was for states' rights," but those states wanted to use those rights to enforce slavery.

It strikes me as like the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Like, wow, you're totally right about the semantics, but at the cost of missing the point entirely.

If you let the radius be Z, then you can find the area of a pizza with a simple formula:

Pi * Z * Z = A