Is it legal to use the APIs of Meetup.com, Eventbrite etc, to aggregate their event data into one place, similar to Google?

I have a predicament. I’m trying to build a platform that will basically be a place where all events, online/offline, are listed.

Initially – my platform will obviously have zero events, because nobody knows about it. And for anyone to use it – there needs to be events on there – classic chicken and egg scenario.

My thought was to aggregate events on to my platform (and link to their source), whilst also allowing users to create events on MY platform. Eventually, I’d be able to not bother listing events from other sources if mine gains enough traction. So, I am definitely competing with these sites.

Google is pulling data from many different events sources, and displaying it on their pages like so – https://www.google.com/search?q=events+in+london+meetup&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUA720GB740&oq=events+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j69i60l3j69i65l2.4289j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&ibp=htl;events&rciv=evn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiYtuPx2bLuAhU3REEAHaRkCZ0Q5rwDKAJ6BAgNEA4&sxsrf=ALeKk03Uj9jeI8lTj0__V-UWcgcv_pdFew:1611427139353#htivrt=events&htidocid=L2F1dGhvcml0eS9ob3Jpem9uL2NsdXN0ZXJlZF9ldmVudC8yMDIxLTAyLTAzfDE2ODA2NzEwNzgyNjAxNDg4MTQ2&fpstate=tldetail

The difference is, Google, I assume (?), is probably scraping the data rather than using APIs.

In the Meetup API Terms, it states:-

"Not use the Meetup API for any commercial purpose without the express written consent of Meetup;

Not undermine our commercial interests or make unreasonable commercial uses of the Meetup API, such as by substantially replicating our Platform or significant aspects of the Platform, to be determined in Meetup’s sole discretion;

While you may charge for any application you develop (subject to Meetup’s consent), you may not sell, lease, or sublicense the Meetup API;"

I know aggregating is a bit of a legal grey area but I wanted to ask for opinions on whether or not this would be legal, and if not – how the hell do I get any traction and users without having any content?

Note: This is in the UK.

How exactly does Burn It! (and similar effects) affect splash and ongoing damage?

The level 1 goblin feat Burn It! gives a status damage bonus to all spells and alchemical items that deal fire damage. It also gives a status damage bonus of +1 to all ongoing fire effects. How does that work with splash damage?

For example, suppose I’m a low-level goblin with the Burn It! feat, who really, really likes fire, and who has just come into a bit of money. I decide to blow it on an alchemist’s Fire (Greater). It’s got +2 to hit, and deals 3d8 fire damage, 3 persistent fire damage, and 3 fire splash damage. It’s level 11, and Burn It! gives a bonus of a quarter of that (min 1) to base and splash damage. I spot two people I don’t like standing next to each other, pitch it at one of them, and hit. Now, without the feat, it’s pretty simple. The guy I hit takes 3d8+3 (base plus splash) and 3 ongoing. The guy next to him just takes 3 splash. With the feat… what happens? Does it affect the splash damage at all? If it does affect the splash damage, do I get the bonus twice on the main guy because I hit him with both base and splash? Does the ongoing damage get just +1 (for being ongoing fire damage) or the full bonus (for being fire damage from an alchemical device)? How is the actual bonus determined (given that the level is not evenly divisible by 4)?

there is a question that covers part of this from the playtest, but it appears that at least some of the rules text has changed since it was written, and it doesn’t cover the full thing.

Can Comprehend Languages understand a language similar to “Darmok and Jalad”?

This is inspired by, but I don’t think duplicates, questions about artificial languages and "secret" "codes".

In crossing geekdoms, the Tamarian language comes from a Star Trek:The Next Generation episode called "Darmok"; from which viewers always recall the phrase "Darmok and Jalad". In the language, they use metaphors, symbolism, and stories to communicate. A classic example is, "Sokath, his eyes uncovered," which means to understand.

Given that, would Comprehend Language work on such a language?

It’s not "artificial", it’s a fully developed language with syntax and grammar. It’s not coded in any way like Thieves’ Cant. They say exactly what they mean to communicate.

When they say, "Temba, his arms wide/open," it’s literally about Temba and how they held their arms. But the actual meaning is about giving a gift.

The spell states, "you understand the literal meaning of any spoken language that you hear." So would the caster hear literally about a person in a hug pose, or would they get the meaning of gift?

Can you escape a grapple during a time stop (without teleporting or similar effects)?

Some context: during our last game a hidden creature charged and grappled (with improved grab) one of the PCs (a 20th-level Sha-ir/Cleric/Dweomerkeeper) during the surprise round. After that this same PC won initiative and the first thing he did was casting time stop. We decided to stop the game there for several reasons, it was already time, one other player had already left and this was an important encounter he didn’t want to miss, and I wasn’t really sure how to rule this situation yet.

So regarding the question itself, say you’re in a grapple with another creature, and during your turn you cast time stop (since it only has verbal components you can cast it while grappling with a DC 29 Concentration check), but you’re inside the area of a forbiddance spell, so you can’t just teleport out.

Could you escape the grapple while time is stopped using the normal method (by making a grapple or escapism check)? I’m guessing that since the opponent can’t move or be moved he can’t make a grapple check either so you can’t even try the opposed check.

Would casting freedom of movement be of any help at all? You automatically succeed on the grapple check to free yourself, but I don’t think you can make that check to begin with.

What other methods could you use to escape before the time stop ends?

Does resurrecting a creature killed by the disintegrate spell (or similar) with wish trigger the non-spell replicating penalties of the wish spell?

The first thing that causes me to question this, is the general design of it, which is more of a RAI assessment. From what I can tell, wish’s non-spell replicating punishment is meant to be a limit and punishment to keep players from breaking the game with repeated and frequent uses of wish to reshape the world and break every other rule of the game with a solid mechanical effect that doesn’t put the whole weight of that limitation on the GM’s shoulders.

From this perspective, using wish to resurrect someone killed by a spell that explicitly tells them that they have to use wish (or another 9th level resurrection spell) to resurrect someone is a fully intended system in the game, and thus should not be subjected to wish’s punishment for "trying to break the game"

The RAW argument for the resurrection not triggering the punishment is that, if the person has died within the last 10 days, the spell Reincarnate only requires you touch a piece of them (resurrection does not have the "piece of them" option), which the dust left behind by disintegrate could be argued to be, and the a new body is generated for them. Wish was used to replicate the spell. Therefore you are meeting the requirements of disintegrate (wish) and the requirements of the non-punishing wish (replicating a spell) and the requirements of Reincarnate (touching a piece of the body). So you should not have a chance to lose wish.

The argument for it not working is pretty straight forward. You are casting wish, invoking the text of the disintegrate spell, not replicating a spell of level 8 or less.

Also, this could seem like it is stepping on the toes of True resurrection. However True resurrection has a much longer timeframe, does not change the character’s race, and does not require the party to pick up all the dust if they can’t cast wish before a strong gust of wind picks up. It also only works to counteract disintegrate or other spells with the same effect in the same way that true resurrection does, it does not replace other reasons that true resurrection could be necessary, such as the body being taken out of the party’s reach.

Reincarnate(Relevant):

You touch a dead Humanoid or a piece of a dead Humanoid. Provided that the creature has been dead no longer than 10 days, the spell forms a new adult body for it and then calls the soul to enter that body. If the target’s soul isn’t free or willing to do so, the spell fails.

Wish(Relevant):

The stress of casting this spell to produce any effect other than duplicating another spell weakens you. After enduring that stress, each time you cast a spell until you finish a long rest, you take 1d10 necrotic damage per level of that spell. This damage can’t be reduced or prevented in any way. In addition, your Strength drops to 3, if it isn’t 3 or lower already, for 2d4 days. For each of those days that you spend resting and doing nothing more than light activity, your remaining recovery time decreases by 2 days. Finally, there is a 33 percent chance that you are unable to cast wish ever again if you suffer this stress.

Disintegrate (Relevant):

A disintegrated creature and everything it is wearing and carrying, except Magic Items, are reduced to a pile of fine gray dust. The creature can be restored to life only by means of a True Resurrection or a wish spell.

Personally, if this came up in play, I would not include wish’s punishment due to the first paragraph, however with the benefit of foresight, I am seeking a more informed answer.

Maintaining Miss Chance at High Levels (Or Similar Defenses)

From my time spent reading answers here, it seems relatively commonly accepted that in Pathfinder, AC is a weak defense. One claim I’ve seen put forth is that it’s entirely possible to obtain a miss chance that equals or exceeds the protection granted by any level of AC; I find this believable given spells like mirror image, blur, and displacement. I’m currently playing a Pathfinder campaign that’s just hit 14th level where I’ve been making decently heavy use of miss chances in place of AC1, and I’ve personally noticed that some form of sense capable of negating most miss chances (generally blindsight or true seeing) is increasingly common.

What ways are there in Pathfinder for a character to make effective use of miss chances at high levels in the presence of supernatural or magical senses that bypass conventional sources of miss chance? Options for any character are acceptable, though given Pathfinder’s large number of two-thirds casters, I’d especially like to see answers not limited to full casters.

I’m also entirely open to a frame challenge of the form that "miss chance is simply not effective at higher levels in Pathfinder," in which case an answer that elaborates on alternative defenses at high level would be preferred.


1 In case anyone’s curious, I’m playing a silksworn occultist in a War for the Crown campaign. We are using basically all first-party sources as well as Path of War from Dreamscarred Press. The specific issues I’ve been observing are a combination of enemies bypassing miss chances and mirror image as well as either enclosed spaces or highly mobile and proactive dangerous melee enemies.

Can Minotaur Players be targeted by Hold Person and other similar spells?

Hold person specifies that it can only target humanoids:

Choose a humanoid that you can see within range[…]

The Minotaur creature stat block from the Monster Manual lists them as monstrosities, not humanoids, however nothing is mentioned of that in the racial stat block in Guildmasters’ Guide to Ravnica or Mythic Odyssey of Theros. Can a PC Minotaur still be targeted by the Hold Person spell, or other spells that specifically target Humanoids?

The only similar things I could find are the racial stat blocks for satyrs and centaurs, which have the change of being the fey creature type, rather than humanoid:

Fey. Your creature type is fey, rather than humanoid.

Does this imply all other player races are humanoid?

Is there a feat or a class feature in 3.5e that is similar to Step Up (Combat) from Pathfinder?

I am looking for a feat that in some way resembles Step Up from Pathfinder:

Step Up (Combat)

You can close the distance when a foe tries to move away.

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability. If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn. If you take an action to move during your next turn, subtract 5 feet from your total movement.

My goal is to prevent a caster to take a 5-foot step away from me while we are engaged in melee, in this way he/she is forced to cast defensively.

I understand that a weapon with reach could easily do the trick, but I can not consider this options.

So, is there any Feat or Class Feature that could help?

Theme suggestion for text-heavy website similar to Inbox theme [closed]

I am looking for a theme with a similar structure as the one here: https://preview.metricthemes.com/inbox/

I unfortunately can’t use that one because it’s horribly coded and basically any modification causes it to malfunction.

I’ve been looking for something similar, with two sidebars, one to filter, one to display a feed of all posts, and a preview pane that contains data of the post that is selected on the second sidebar.

If anyone has any ideas regarding something similar, would very much appreciate it.

Comments on “Which combinatorial problem is similar to this problem?”

Regarding the post Which combinatorial problem is similar to this problem?, it is quite hard to believe that, in the absence of information on the cost function, there is no algorithm better than exhaustive search to tackle this apparently easy-to-understand problem. I surfed the Internet and found something called the Weighted Constraint Satisfaction Problem, and I wonder whether this can be of any use in this case.

Any advise would be much appreciated.