Also, if the Flipper Zero can clone your bank’s card, you should probably switch to another bank.

It’s a neat tool, and it can definitely do a lot, but it’s not magic, and it can’t emulate decent cards with proper security. If your bank card doesn’t have that, that’s… an issue.

On a similar note: In German, “seven hundred fifty three” would be said as “seven hundred three and fifty”.

At least it’s consistent - starting at “thirteen” , which is “three ten”, up to ninety nine, which is “nine and ninety”, the multiples of ten come last.

It is pretty annoying, though, when a number like 123’456’789 is spoken as 132-465-798, though.

Apparently, it’s because in old Germanic, the numbers were spoken “backwards” (one hundred twenty three being spoken as “three and twenty and hundred”), and we only partially reversed that.

Between liking cats, favoring the colors purple and blue, and enjoying humor based on twisted logic, choosing “Cheshire Cat” as namesake seemed obvious.

Don’t get your hopes up.

Microsoft is now working on Windows Copilot, a new sidebar for Windows 11 that is powered by Bing Chat and can control Windows settings, answer questions, and lots more.

They’re already working on a successor.

I don’t think you’re missing anything.

It’s just tradable karma on the blockchain.

Oh, it also had the [evil] tag, which means that just how a spell tagged [fire] releases elemental fire into the world, a spell tagged [evil] releases pure evil energy, magically making the world a worse place… somehow. For reasons. 3.5 loved to give alignment mechanical effects, it had one or two books (Vile Darkness was technically for 3.0) entirely dedicated to hard rules for morality.

But 5e doesn’t have tags like that, and alignment is almost irrelevant. Which is probably for the better, because alignment is incredibly subjective.

Raise Dead is fine, it’s the second “become alive again” spell after CPR Revivify.

Animate Dead is the “get skeletons and zombies” spell.

That being said, the various re-alive-ing spells are kind of the best reason for a “necromancy is evil”-argument. Or at least, they used to be.

In 3.5, nothing - not even True Resurrection, which was just “name dead creature, creature pops up next to you, alive” - could bring someone back who had been turned undead, until the undead had been destroyed.

Which means the easiest way to prevent someone from getting brought back to life was to turn them into an undead skeleton and hide them somewhere, nothing short of direct divine intervention would be able to return them to life unless something destroyed the skeleton.

This strongly implied that turning the body into an undead also trapped and enslaved the soul. After all, otherwise, True Rez - requiring nothing but the name of the target, and able to straight up build a new body from scratch - wouldn’t fail to rez someone just because their body was desecrated.

Now, in 5e, True Rez says that it can be casted on an undead to return them to life, but also only that it can restore a body “if the original no longer exists”, which I guess implies that simply embalming/non-necromantically mummifying the body and hiding it away would also work (since the body still exists that way, and thus 5e’s True Rez wouldn’t build a new one), making the only notable difference between an undead and a corpse that the undead might not hold still during the resurrection.

Basically, Necromancy went from 3.5’s “implied soul slavery” to 5e’s “corpse desecration, which is a cultural construct”.