If you would like tips I beat him with parries. Basically all his attacks other than his special wind slash and follow up can be parried. I Basically never used parry before and found he was a good enemy to practice until I was consistent.
If he wips out the crossbow stay at range and run to a side when he fires. Don’t need to roll and don’t want to close the distance until he is done.
I have seen other people use big wepons to pancake or stunlock him too.
Wasps: I like to hurt people
He would look even better if it went through and people felt the relief. It’s a win-bigger win for Biden, Republicans chose smaller win.
I am more talking about modern fantasy and not historical fiction/exaggeration.
Language evolves and there is no reason that we can’t invent new definitions/classifications of things that don’t reflect previous nomenclature. Especially for fantasy where everything is made up.
I agree there is no one true definition but I think something like this is the accepted descriptions that is also reflected in other media like DnD. For example, alot of people say Skyrim got their dragons wrong (naming wise) because they are more akin to what people consider Wyverns.
https://dragons.fandom.com/wiki/Types_of_Dragons
Edit: Added (naming wise)
It’s just down to how you describe an animal. In pictures you show but in books it’s just description so it’s good to have somekind of standard to follow to help the reader understand.
Like a wyvern has a much different way of walking since it doesn’t have fore-limbs, and has to walks on the ends of it’s wings. Imagine a bat walking on all fours. A dragon has it’s wings on it’s back and walks on its 4 legs. By having a kind of standardized naming provides a much different mental image of how the creature behaves.
Wyverns don’t have the tiny vestigial hands like T-rex with wings. It would be more like a Proto-dragon from World Of Warcraft.
Sea water is about 3 to 3.5% denser than fresh. So you are right you float better in normal sea water but not by much. So he still sinks. Although, the dead sea which 9.6 times as salty at sea water gets to 24% heavier.
It depends alot on body fat content. Fat floats. My BIL is very slim and muscular and he sinks like a rock.
There are still waves. Imagine if the sea isn’t calm. People already can’t stay alive forever in the water. This might not be a “fresh” capable person after a long day of sun and swimming. Add the panic of rapidly being sucked out to open water. Even the strongest swimmers could succumb in certain conditions. Even if you get out how long can most people tred water and fight waves for?
The alternative is absolutely unfathomable. Like I am an atheist and the fact we exist in any capacity is insane. Where did everything come from? Where will it go? People believe in religion because it’s easier.
When I have an existential crisis over it I sometimes wish I was religious.
Adorable. Look at those little rascals go.
Insurance is pure capitalism, using all their data and statistics to streamline care and minimize costs (for them, not for us). Sometimes it does work for the people’s benefit, but most of the time it doesnt. For example, I have been told it is in insurance companies best interests to cover contraception to avoid having to pay the much higher costs of pregnancy later. Which is a positive.
They could have found that the x-ray identifies hairline fracture or something else that is misidentified as a tear. Or they are just shitty ¯_/(ツ)_/¯
In my experience a Resume is a one page. A CV is 2-3.
My friends getting their PhDs had a really hard time getting theirs and almost had to leave the country.
The cutoff statement was a question for the previous commenter to show that only some science is relevant to religious beliefs and therefore their thinking is flawed.
What field would be the cut off? Is religion going to influence how a metallurgist analyzes microstructure? How about how a chemist developing new polymers? Who gets to decide? If a scientist allows their religion, or any external influence, to influence their work they are a bad scientist. Which is why we have peer review and reproducible results. There is no need to label anyone. If their work is shit there is mechanisms to correct it, which we are seeing in the article.
People’s relationship with religion is not up to you, just how the opinions of the religious shouldn’t get to dictate the lives LGBT+. They might be in it for community and don’t belive the “fantasy”. If an individual is spouting hate that is one thing, but judging individuals by their religion is the same persecution the religious zelots dish out.
Edit: some wording
I don’t consider myself as religious, but this is just such a bad take.
I too dislike religion, but judging people based on their beliefs and discrediting their views because of it is exactly the problem.
I have to say I think your comment is very well written. You are much better with words than I. However, I fail to see where I am lumping people together.
Like I understand there is some discontinuity between your orgional comment and my approximation of how it comes across. I get what you are saying about swapping “young man” for “toxic man” and see how it seems I conflated the two. But the answer to their question is still “dont act like this”. I am clearly not insinuating that all young people are automatically misogynistic just because the word was omitted. People acting misogynistic are (intended or not) perpetuating misogyny and if they fail to respond to correction, even if not directed at them, is not the failure of the left.
I am not sure what you meant by “makes your first sentence completely wrong”. If you are referring to my use of “child” it was a euphemism comparing how social backlash for poor behavior is akin to disciplining a child.
It’s clear that you want the best for young people and to keep them out if the right wing ideology. But blaming it on “the left” and not the source of the probelm is just ridiculous.
Edit: Deleted my last sentence about positive role models because it was incorrect. And added stuff below.
After thinking about your comments overnight I understand what you are saying and agree. The left needs to do more to educate and guide young people.
Not to start a war about hardest boss and haven’t beaten DLC yet but Elden Ring has what alot of people would say is the hardest boss in the franchise. Like Elden Ring did open things up to more people with the open world making it easier to go around or bypass walls, but it isn’t easier.
Like there isn’t a single boss in DS1 or 2 that comes anywhere close to fighting Melania. IMO Bloodborne and DS3 have contenders but if you are 100%ing the game Elden Ring is just as hard as any other souls game. Although the horse and teleporting does make some of the zones easier to explore, there are still difficult dungeons.
I think alot of people remember DS1 being much harder because we were also learning the system, how it plays, how to win.