Prompt: HEX Update – Warriors Got Talent This week, we’re getting a double hit from Director of Game Theory, Ben Stoll. Hi HEXers! As you saw yesterday, we’re patching next week Tuesday. Patching starts at 3 AM Pacific, so new tournament registration will close at 11 PM Pacific on Monday, August 24th. Now that that’s out of the way let’s take a look at the second spoiler that players were able to see at Gen Con: the Warrior talent tree. CLASS TALENTS As you may or may not have caught wind of, we recently revealed the new talent system for the

PvE campaign and we also spoiled one of our talent trees: the Warrior! I want to talk to you a little about the Class Talent system, which is a very important feature of the big campaign launch. Before we begin though, I want to throw out the warning that everything is still in development and subject to change. So, please keep that in mind as you read through this article. MIGHT As you may have heard on one of our streams last year, we were tinkering with a leveling system where you would start each dungeon at level 1 and would be more session-based using a mechanic we called “Might”. Well, the Might system is gone. Not only is our current class talent system better for the game, it was clear from player responses that a traditional leveling system was what players expected. PHILOSOPHY It’s very important to us that the campaign feels like an RPG. As you’ll find when you finally get your hands on it, we generally want systems that blend everything you love about TCGs and everything you love about RPGs into something that is simultaneously excitingly new and comfortably familiar. Class Talents are no exception. Part of feeling like an RPG is creating your own character, watching them grow and level up progressively over an entire campaign, and making impactful decisions that determine your character’s development. Of course, the first impactful decision is which race and class you choose. Each race and class has many strengths and weaknesses, and while I want any player to be able to enjoy any class, each class plays very differently from the others. This should be apparent even before looking at the talent grids, just by virtue of the extreme differences in starting hand and health totals! CREATING A CHARACTER


Prompt: Stephen Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe HONG KONG (AP)  World-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that the late Pope John Paul II once told scientists they should not study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God. Hawking, author of the best-seller A Brief History of Time, said John Paul made the comments at a cosmology conference at the Vatican. He did not say when the meeting was held. Hawking quoted the pope as saying, "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not

inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God." The scientist then joked that he was glad John Paul did not realize that he had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began. "I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo," Hawking said during a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The church condemned Galileo in the 17th century for supporting Nicholas Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe. But in 1992, Pope John Paul II issued a declaration saying the church's denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Hawking is one of the best-known theoretical physicists of his generation. He has done groundbreaking research on black holes and the origins of the universe, and he proposes that space and time have no beginning and no end. During a question-and-answer session, Hawking was asked where constants like gravity come from and whether gravity can distort light. But there were several humorous moments. The wheelchair-bound Hawking, who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, communicates with an electronic speech synthesizer. Hawking was asked why his computerized voice has an American accent. "The voice I use is a very old hardware speech synthesizer made in 1986," he said. "I keep it because I have not heard a voice I like better and because I have identified with it." He said he once considered using a machine that gave him a French accent, but he did not because his wife would divorce him. But Hawking said he is shopping for a new system because his current hardware is large and fragile, using components that are


Prompt: In an effort to dispel perceptions that he's a radical right-winger, David Koch told Barbara Walters in December that he's "basically a libertarian," explaining that he's "a conservative on economic matters, and I’m a social liberal.” Koch's comments hardly came as a surprise. Before he and his brother Charles calculated that they could best implement their anti-government agenda as Republican megadonors, David was the Libertarian Party's vice presidential nominee in 1980. Moreover, "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" politics are pretty much the norm among the corporate elite. They don't get exercised over abortion and gay marriage; in fact, they're often downright

embarrassed by the troglodytic views of rank-and-file social conservatives. What really matters is that they're allowed to profit (and plunder) as they please, free from the overweening hand of the nefarious state. So it will come as no surprise that the Koch political network doesn't exactly advance socially liberal values. According to a new analysis from Think Progress, the Kochs' political machine -- encompassing such organizations as Freedom Partners Action Fund and Americans for Prosperity -- has contributed $86 million to candidates and groups who oppose abortion rights and marriage equality since 2010 -- a total 1,000 times that contributed to candidates and organizations that voice traditionally liberal views on those issues. Of 265 elected officials who benefited from Koch-linked money, the report finds, all but nine opposed abortion rights, while a scant 12 supported marriage equality. Advertisement: It's enough for Think Progress to assert that the Kochs aren't really socially liberal at all. But there are two more salient takeaways from the data. First, it's a reminder of how Americans and their politicians have become increasingly ideologically consistent in their views. Tell me a politician's opinion on the Affordable Care Act, and I'll have a pretty good idea of what she thinks about abortion. So for the Kochs, supporting anti-regulation, anti-safety net, anti-tax, anti-climate science candidates and causes inevitably means supporting candidates and groups that don't adhere to their views on social issues. Which leads to the second crucial point: As much as we like to think of politics in terms of social jousting, it's fundamentally about a society's distribution of resources -- "who gets what, when, and how," in the words of Harold Lasswell. For the plutocratic class, a sudden armistice in the culture wars would pose a particularly vexing problem: How now to distract the unwashed from


Prompt: More than once during a storm — as I've fretted over the contents of my freezer or my lack of access to Netflix — I've found myself asking: Why doesn't the U.S. bury its power lines? It turns out I'm not alone in wondering. Burying power lines is expensive The simple answer is that burying power lines is considerably more expensive than you might think. As reported by CNN, North Carolina's Utility Commission looked into burying power lines after more than 2 million homes were left without electricity in the storms of 2002. Th commission found that the project would

cost $41 billion, take 25 years to complete, and would require that customers' electricity rates nearly double to pay for it — leading the commission to conclude that it would be "prohibitively expensive." Access and longevity are a concern The upfront cost of "undergrounding" power lines isn't the only downside. According to this Wikipedia entry on the practice, other disadvantages include a shorter shelf life for cables, the danger of the cables being accidentally damaged by road construction or other digging, vulnerability to floods and the fact that if damage does occur, repairs can take considerably longer than what's needed for overhead cables. That said, there are advantages. Some communities advocate burying cables for aesthetic reasons. My hometown of Durham, North Carolina, has chopped down or severely pruned its beautiful street trees because they interfere with power lines. (Apparently, when Durham's many willow oaks were planted, city planners assumed power lines would eventually be buried.) Undergrounding: Long-term investment and economic stimulus Commentator David Frum has made a strong case for burying power lines, arguing that utilities' cost estimates are over-inflated (a U.K. study suggested a premium of five times the cost of overhead lines, not 10); that resilience to storms is increasingly important in a changing climate; and that because U.S. cities are becoming more dense, we can expect the cost per mile to come down. Frum also argued that undergrounding is the kind of job-creating initiative that governments should undertake during an economic downturn, taking advantage of low interest rates to upgrade our infrastructure, shore up our communities against the threat of climate change and put many Americans back to work. (Indeed, burying power lines is one of the ways cities are preparing themselves for climate change.) It seems unlikely that large-scale undergrounding will take off anytime soon, at


Prompt: For better or worse, things want to work. Consider driving at night on unlit, curvy mountain roads, at a speed about twice the limit, zigzagging between cars, including oncoming ones. Obviously dangerous, and yet many do this, and survive. How? Roads and cars are built with big safety margins Other drivers don't want to die and help you get through Practice makes perfect, so you get good at this bad thing The road, the car, you, other drivers, and their cars all want this to work. So for a long while, it does, until it finally doesn't. I know 3-4

people who drive like this habitually. At least 2 of them totaled cars. All think they're excellent drivers. All have high IQs, making you wonder just what this renowned benchmark of human brains really tells us. Now consider a terribly managed project with an insane deadline, and a team and budget too small. All too often, this too works out. How? Unless it physically cannot exist, a solution wants you to find it. You carve out a piece and the next piece suggests itself. Even if management fails to think how the pieces fit together, the pieces often come out such that they can be made to fit with modest extra effort. you to find it. You carve out a piece and the next piece suggests itself. Even if management fails to think how the pieces fit together, the pieces often come out such that they can be made to fit with modest extra effort. And then the people who make the pieces want them to fit. Even if the process is totally mismanaged, many people will talk to each other and find out what to do to make parts work together. them to fit. Even if the process is totally mismanaged, many people will talk to each other and find out what to do to make parts work together. The project was approved because a customer was persuaded. At this point, the customer wants the project to succeed. A little bit of schedule slippage will not make them change their minds, nor will a somewhat less impressive result. More slack for you. the project to succeed. A little bit of schedule slippage will not make them change their minds, nor will a somewhat less impressive result. More slack for you. The vendor, too wants the project to succeed, and


Prompt: Scott Brown of ESPN reported from the Steelers locker room that even after the game Cameron Heyward was none-too-pleased with the “dirty play” of the Browns on Sunday. Defensive end Cameron Heyward didn’t hide his anger in the visiting locker room at FirstEnergy Field, and not just because the Steelers had been embarrassed by one of their archrivals. Heyward was still fuming at getting chop-blocked several times. Late in the fourth quarter, Heyward hurt his ankle and angrily pointed at Browns left tackle Joe Thomas several times as he walked off the field. Heyward did not sustain a significant injury,

but that’s beside the point, the fourth-year veteran said. “It’s a dirty play,” Heyward said of chop-blocking. “We talk so much about safety. We don’t do a good job of keeping it safe for everybody. I think it’s cowardly thing, but if [the Browns are] going to coach it like that, that’s their call.” Our friends over at Steelers Depot have the GIFs. Steelers Depot also points out that this is not a new complaint for the Steelers. Nose tackle Steve McLendon accused the Browns of chop blocking illegally three times during Week 1. There’s no doubt that it’s dangerous for an offensive lineman to go low in a blocking scheme. Anytime you are purposely making contact with a guy’s knees or lower leg, bad things can happen. It seems like Joe Thomas probably violated the rule in one form or another, if I’m being perfectly honest. If Heyward was engaged with another lineman, it would be illegal according to the rules. CHOP BLOCK ON RUN (BY A LINEMAN) (6) On a running play, A1, an offensive lineman, chops a defensive player after the defensive player has been engaged by A2 (high or low), and the initial alignment of A2 is more than one position away from A1. This rule applies only when the block occurs at a time when the flow of the play is clearly away from A1. And even if Heyward wasn’t engaged, Joe Thomas might have violated the new version of the rule because he blocked Heyward from a blind position. In order for it to be a legal “cut block” Thomas would have to square up the defender so he can see him coming. Ed Bouchette from the Post Gazette… It’s only legal if the “chop” comes from a lineman playing next to the one


Prompt: Photo Personal Health Jane Brody on health and aging. What would it take to persuade you to exercise A desire to lose weight or improve your figure? To keep heart disease, cancer or diabetes at bay? To lower your blood pressure or cholesterol? To protect your bones? To live to a healthy old age? You’d think any of those reasons would be sufficient to get Americans exercising, but scores of studies have shown otherwise. It seems that public health experts, doctors and exercise devotees in the media — like me — have been using ineffective tactics to entice sedentary people

to become, and remain, physically active. For decades, people have been bombarded with messages that regular exercise is necessary to lose weight, prevent serious disease and foster healthy aging. And yes, most people say they value these goals. Yet a vast majority of Americans — two-thirds of whom are overweight or obese — have thus far failed to swallow the “exercise pill.” Now research by psychologists strongly suggests it’s time to stop thinking of future health, weight loss and body image as motivators for exercise. Instead, these experts recommend a strategy marketers use to sell products: portray physical activity as a way to enhance current well-being and happiness. “We need to make exercise relevant to people’s daily lives,” Michelle L. Segar, a research investigator at the Institute for Research on Women and Gender at the University of Michigan, said in an interview. “Everyone’s schedule is packed with nonstop to-do’s. We can only fit in what’s essential.” Reframing the Message Dr. Segar is among the experts who believe that people will not commit to exercise if they see its benefits as distant or theoretical. “It has to be portrayed as a compelling behavior that can benefit us today,” she said. “People who say they exercise for its benefits to quality of life exercise more over the course of a year than those who say they value exercise for its health benefits.” Her idea for a public service advertisement to promote exercise for working women with families: A woman is shown walking around the block after dinner with her children and says, “This is great. I can fit in fitness, spend quality time with my kids, and at the same time teach them how important exercise is.” Based on studies of what motivates people to adopt and sustain physical activity, Dr. Segar


Prompt: There’s some pitter-patter on the worldwide web concerning a rumored project simply known as Google Me. It all started with a Twitter update from Digg founder Kevin Rose saying that he’d heard a rumor from a “very credible source” that Google would be launching a “Facebook competitor very soon” called Google Me. That tweet has since been removed, which may or may not indicate that Google asked him to do so. Then a former Facebook higher-up named Adam D’Angelo chimed in, saying the following: “Here is what I’ve pieced together from some reliable sources: – This is not a rumor.

This is a real project. There are a large number of people working on it. I am completely confident about this. – They realized that Buzz wasn’t enough and that they need to build out a full, first-class social network. They are modeling it off of Facebook. – Unlike previous attempts (before Buzz at least), this is a high-priority project within Google. – They had assumed that Facebook’s growth would slow as it grew, and that Facebook wouldn’t be able to have too much leverage over them, but then it just didn’t stop, and now they are really scared.” Facebook has made no qualms about going after Google, hiring away Google’s VP of Global Online Sales and Operations, Sheryl Sandberg, to become Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer. And the recent introduction of Facebook’s Open Graph protocol is seen by many as a direct attempt to entice members to conduct their web searches from within Facebook itself—no need to hop over to Google to look something up. You may recall that Google’s tried its hand at the whole social networking thing already. There’s Orkut, an actual social network that never really caught on in the US, though it’s apparently huge in Brazil and India. And then there’s Buzz, a Twitter-like something or other that’s been buried in most people’s inboxes in favor of, well, Twitter. And therein lies Google’s main challenge. How do you lure people away from a service they already use? Is Buzz vastly superior to Twitter? You can embed photos and full blog posts into Buzz and you can see people’s comments on your updates. Cool, sure, but Twitter is still the go-to standard for simple, short, ADD-friendly updates. Google’s made it clear that its strategy is “mobile first” and, wouldn’t you know it, the mobile version of Google