I don’t think it’s fair to flatly posit that since the CDC has been wrong at some point in the past, they can’t ever be trusted. While i understand the concept of don’t blindly follow words regardless of who said it, the sheer amount of research and dedication from an organization such as the CDC should count quite a bit more than the folks who have done none.

I don’t have the means to do such research, and as such i will more heavily weigh the words of the applicable research team than i will the words of someone who has no knowledge on the topic.

I think the question really should be not “have they ever been wrong,” but instead, “do i think they’re wrong on purpose.” A lot of research teams are funded by one side of an argument, which is cause for concern. The CDC is most likely not, and it would be fair to say they could be wrong, but likely not on purpose. Therefore i would say in this instance they are the more qualified experts who are also trying their best to be objective, and therefore, they likely have the more reasonable statement on this topic.

I’m not the other commenter, but I’m fairly certain they’re making a play on the title of this post, which just ends with “They.”

While i can agree that this encounter needs some work (would’ve been cool if the dragon could try to persuade you to mess with the required NPC), but i don’t know if it’s significant enough of an interaction to call a true fumble. Larian also isn’t above going in and fixing things or making things better, as they’re continuously adding and improving content.

Also, from my perspective, this game is supposed to be a baldurs gate storyline, not D&D 5e, the motion picture the video game. So for me, i was really glad to see them going hard into the lore, and this one felt pretty good to me.

I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that a more detailed logo is going to automatically be good in this context. People can complain about lack of detail, and also be disappointed if more detail is poorly executed.

This is how I’ve always understood it as well. The two spellings are homophones so it’s a pretty easy mistake to make.

I disagree, “should’ve” and “should of” sound virtually identical when spoken (at least in some regions, can’t speak for all pronunciations). I can imagine why a non english native speaker would have trouble with this, though I’m not disagreeing with it being a common issue amongst native speakers as well.

The situation in the picture suggests the guy is romantically interested in the girl. Based on body language, the girl appears less interested. Based on this perception, somebody added the text in the post, which is written to sound like the girl is inviting the guy to go on a walk together. When the guy readily agrees to the arrangement, she surprisingly indicates that she is not actually going on the walk, but she was trying to find a way to ask him to leave without sounding impolite.

quietly turns around

Oh i know that place! It’s the corner bistro!