This may be subjective. Bose might sound good to some people's ears and less good to other people's ears.

I personally prefer corded headphones and mains powered speakers, but if I were to buy a small wireless speaker I would buy a cheaper brand and ideally second hand, because this category of devices are basically consumables.

Sound quality is not the same as music quality.

To be more specific, Sound Reproduction Fidelity is not the same as Pleasant Music

To be even more specific, Signal Reproduction is not the same as "Pleasant Sounds*

The goal of music is not always high fidelity of reproduction; if it were, over-driven valve amps would never have been a thing.

The only thing objective in this context is signal reproduction, which is not the highest concern for music production.

If a speaker reproduces some music with 100% accuracy and the result is unpleasant, doesn’t that just mean the original music—as created by the artist—is unpleasant?

Where possible, I’d prefer a speaker that respects the artist’s decisions instead of inserting itself into the creative process.

IMHO, people place too much importance on "accuracy". While accuracy might be objectively measured, it means nothing when it comes to individual taste.

Hi-fi speakers, tube amps, and other accessories generally "degrade" the sound with added harmonics and natural smile EQs. That's what makes them sound more pleasing.

(I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding more color.)

A good example of this is a target curve, often used in room calibration. Dirac has a good explanation: https://www.dirac.com/resources/target-curve

(highly recommend Dirac room correction, by the way)

There's an argument for both, but frankly, if studio monitor setups don't sound "as good" why bother?

A $40 Bluetooth box from any big name brand is better than the speakers in a smart TV.

I don't understand this reasoning at all, and I'm hoping you can shed some light on it.

As far as I know, C# supports static methods. Thus, using OO in C# would not have been required, would it?

I feel like I'm missing something here.

   var foo: { bar: { baz: string } }

   var foo struct { bar struct { baz string } } 

    type Platform = "Mastodon" | "Bluesky" | "Threads";

    type Profile = {
      name: string,
      socials: {
        handle: string,
        platform: Platform
      }[]
    }

    function getProfiles() : Profile[] {
      return [{
        name: "Charles",
        socials: [
          { handle: "@chrlschn", platform: "Mastodon" },
          { handle: "@chrlschn", platform: "Bluesky" }
        ]
      },
      {
        name: "Sandra",
        socials: [
          { handle: "@sndrchn", platform: "Threads" }
        ]
      }]
    }

    using Profile = (
      string Name,
      (
        string Handle,
        Platform Platform
      )[] Socials //  Array of tuples in another tuple
    );

    enum Platform { Mastodon, Bluesky, Threads }

    Profile[] GetProfiles() => new[] {
      ("Charles", new[] {
        ("@chrlschn", Platform.Mastodon),
        ("@chrlschn", Platform.Bluesky),
      }),
      ("Sandra", new[] {
        ("@sndrchn", Platform.Threads)
      }),
    };

Considering how fast the TypeScript compiler is, the TypeGo -> Go transpilation might as well be similar (up to a constant factor) in speed to Go compilation itself.

I'd give it a try. As a highly enthusiastic Go programmer, a powerful TypeScript-like type system is something I'd welcome in Go with open arms.

Not to mention that D&D rules aren't carved in stone. I've never encountered a DM or D&D group that wouldn't allow players the leeway to create a barbarian gnome or half-orc wizard with their desired stats, if that was important to them.

The changes WoTC made are bad, and make everything less fun and more generic. Their intentions were good, but what they've done really isn't helpful or good at all.

> The changes WoTC made are bad, and make everything less fun and more generic. Their intentions were good, but what they've done really isn't helpful or good at all.

As you said above, the DM and table can agree to whatever constraints they want for the game, including using the old ability scores.

After opening this web page, I pressed down arrow a few times to scroll the page. At first, I didn't understand why it only scrolled a few pixels.

It looks like there's a scrollable area within a scrollable area. The outermost scrollable area only scrolls a few pixels.

This is a badly designed web page.

These days most people should be using Chromebooks and iPads, which are far and away more secure.

The company I work for has the same chat retention policy, but despite that, even being able to go back just 90 days has proven very useful!