On its own that’s misleading, you should be using the per capita stats.

Can’t sell my data if I’ve never given them any

Definitely another option.

It’ll probably work for a good decade or two before it goes out of date. They still need to support the enterprise LTS version, which I think includes excel.

To be fair, if you’re using large amounts of data and formulas as a power user, you should probably be instead writing some python or something to handle CSVs.

As for your particular example, LibreCalc would work just fine.

IIRC there is browser support for excel

My group did a multi-shot where we played ourselves, and we each set each other’s stats. Each of us took a turn being DM so we could each play ourselves.

Mine was something like 8, 9, 8, 14, 12, 8

I’d have to dig up that ancient sheet to know for sure.

Then I spent a decent chunk of the campaign trying to build a phone charger out of random things you’d find in Chult.

If they existed it would be The Boys style super"heros". So I don’t know, I’d kinda prefer they didn’t know how to catch a punch.

Which is why you have a judiciary and constitution outlining protections.

So maybe we should switch to systems that represent everyone equally, with equal and fair democratic representation, so that when evil inevitably arises it can be squashed.

deleted by creator

if morality were dictated to rational agents through an external source, we could not be sure of its objectivity (i.e., universal and necessary validity). Moreover, the notion of an external source that dictates morality conflicts with our being free moral agents. Hence we must legislate ourselves through our own faculty of reason such that the moral law holds objectively for rational agents such as us.

I agree with everything here until the “must” of the last sentence, as it seems to be based on the implication that said free agents care. There are people who do not care for their own wellbeing, or the wellbeing of others. On a subjective basis, they lack the values that objective reasoning would be built on.

To them that “must” is meaningless. Or worse, they view statements such as that as being dictated to them from an external source.

On top of that, we aren’t completely rational, or able to make completely rational conclusions at all times. We can make attempts, sure. But we have biases, we fall into fallacies without realizing, and like I said some of us just don’t care.

Morality can’t be objective if we can’t be objective.

but I’d rather not recapitulate the entire work. If you’re interested, I would read the following entry page on the issue.

I understand not wanting to do that, so all good.

Though. I’m more interested in a discussion than anything else.

Kant thought that the moral law is a duty that is imposed upon the self by reason.

What is the evidence that this thought is true? How do you objectively prove this?

Kant thought that the moral law is a duty that is imposed upon the self by reason.

So how do you evidence that this value is objective?

if everybody lied all the time, then lies would lose their effectiveness.

How does effectiveness of lying have anything to do with the morality of lying?

If I am ineffective at providing for my family (disability/sicknese/other means for which I cannot control), is that immoral?

How would society handle critical functions such as water sanitation for millions of people without a state to enforce equitable share of the cost?