Echinoderm

While there is plenty of scope for justifiable criticism about the form of the amendment that's going ahead, it's too late for that argument to achieve much. The wording is set, the date is set, the taxpayer money is already being spent.

Since it is going ahead anyway, do you think voting no will make governments revisit further steps in the future faster than a yes vote?

Personally, I doubt it would. Progress is more likely to be gained by having something, no matter how small, already in place so that a future amendment can build on it, rather than trying for something more substantial from scratch.

Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom were both great games, with good story (if a little cutesy, but it’s aimed at being family friendly), not even really any allusion to sex.

A bit yes and no with TOTK I think.

Time to use Lay on Hands.

It's difficult. But interesting trivia: his dad was the only judge to ever be removed from office by an Australian parliament. https://insidestory.org.au/judging-vasta/

The summary missed an important part that makes this ridiculous:

During the same interview, Ms Keen-Minshull had said she would likely not have time to pursue legal action against Mr Pesutto over his comments.

This is basically what I do as well.

One thing I find useful is to list your party's Perception modifiers, use the formula above for a random d20 result for each PC, then add them together (for example, =B2+C2). Then when they walk into a room, hit F9 for an instant whole-party secret Perception roll.

The moon needed to be de-nazified.

On June 9, 2022, Fagan had been drinking when she drove erratically...

Fagan, who gave birth last month

That's either a very poor life choice, or a very deliberate life choice for someone facing prison time.

The barbarian isn't going to just say "I roll athletics" without explaining what they are trying to achieve. Same for persuasion. "I try to convince the mayor we are experienced enough adventurers to assist" is enough to let the GM know what the intention is and give context for the NPC's possible reponse.

I understand the "build it and they will come" mentality. Without a place to start those discussions, I presume they won't start at all.

I suppose it's a bit of a question about how do we define what a sub is for and let people know? Even then, no guarantee people will run with it.

I think legally-themed communities are prone to falling into the pit of people asking for legal advice on the internet at the best of times. I know the mods at the auslaw subreddit, despite as clearly as possible saying "no legal advice, no real lawyer is going to answer you," spend plenty of time removing legal advice requests or people saying "not asking for legal advice, but hypothetically, if I had a kg of meth down my pants, could the police search me? Just hypothetically?"

There will always be exceptions, for example for disabilities or medical conditions. Most of those exceptions will be more accessible to wealthy or influential families that can afford to pay off doctors than poorer families.

Even if the Uluru Statement was 200 pages long and called for white slavery, it would still be misleading for Sky News to imply it has any relevance to what is actually being voted on in the Voice referendum. The wording of the proposed constitutional amendment is only about 4 paragraphs long, and has already been set by Parliament.