Dragon’s Dogma 2 is not an online game‚ although the Pawns you’ll encounter come from other players‚ providing a strange quasi-multiplayer functionality. Can you encounter and summon pawns from other platforms? Can you summon Pawns from other Platforms in Dragon’s Dogma 2? Unfortunately‚ Dragon’s Dogma 2 does not support cross platform‚ meaning you are limited to the Pawns on your platform. This may come as a disappointment to many‚ especially those with friends on different platforms who’s Pawns you’d wish to hire. Upon even trying to enter the Pawn ID from a friend‚ an error will pop up‚ saying that they’re unable to find that Pawn. Screenshot: PC Invasion I experienced this with a fellow writer. I input his Pawns’ ID exactly (JIZ4K8FLLHU8)‚ and he did the same for my Pawn (RDDD74BII26N). We couldn’t summon each other’s Pawns‚ as he plays on PS5 and I play on PC‚ which was a huge shame. I felt rather left out...

In an early side quest for Dragon’s Dogma 2‚ you’ll be tasked with finding a plant called Harspud. And if you’re having trouble tracking it down that’s no problem. Let’s quickly cover how to find Harspuds in Dragon’s Dogma 2. Dragon’s Dogma 2: Where to find Harspud In the Borderwatch Outpost‚ you’ll be able to start a quest called The Provisioner’s Plight. This quest requires you to find three Harspud and two Salubrious Draughts. You’ve probably already got a couple of the Draughts in your inventory. But the Harspuds are a little trickier. Luckily you can find them in the immediate area of the quest. Screenshot: PC Invasion You can easily find a Harspud in Dragon’s Dogma 2 by looking out for its unique characteristics. Harspuds are medium-sized plants that have a purple spiral growing in and around them. This makes them very easy to spot even amid other plants. They’re also a fairly common plant to find...

In this fantasy RPG‚ you can come across a pair of books that when put together bring disaster. So where can you find On the Transference of Souls 1 and 2 in Dragon’s Dogma 2? Here’s how to use them and where they’re located. Dragon’s Dogma 2: Short-Sighted Ambition quest guide You may first hear about this pair of books after speaking with Isaac in Bakbattahl who works at Isaac’s Wares. This will start the Short-Sighted Ambition quest where he tells you he’s reading the first copy of On the Transference of Souls but is looking for the second book to make the pair. Screenshot: PC Invasion Isaac will first ask for a Ripened Quince‚ which you can get by harvesting Quince in the open world of Battahl and waiting a day or two for it to age. After giving Isaac the Ripened Quince he’ll ask you to find the second book‚ giving you a hint to where he found it at a shop in the Checkpoint Rest Town. Screenshot: PC Invasion You can find O...

Fighter was my starting Vocation in Dragon’s Dogma 2 and it’s one of my favorite Pawn Vocations. Whether you’re building an amazing Arisen or Pawn Fighter‚ here is the best Fighter build in Dragon’s Dogma 2. Best Fighter Weapon Skills and Core Skills in Dragon’s Dogma 2 Since Fighter is one of the best starting Vocations in Dragon’s Dogma 2 and it stays fun and gets better as you level up‚ it’s only natural for you to want to know how to make the best Fighter build. Let’s start with the best Weapon Skills and Core Skills. Screenshot: PC Invasion Best Fighter Weapon Skills Counter Slash Gouging Skewer Launchboard or Hindsight Slash Impeccable Guard All Vocations only get access to four Weapon Skills and I think the best Fighter Weapon Skills are Counter Slash‚ Gouging Skewer‚ Impeccable Guard‚ and Launchboard for Pawns or Hindsight Slash for Arisen. You can counter enemy attacks with Counter Slash‚ deal mas...

Federal judges have ruled against the Biden administration in several recent high-profile cases‚ and those on the Left are not happy about it. Instead of defending their policies on the merits in front of these judges‚ those on the Left have instead pressured the principal policy-making body for the federal judiciary to change how cases are assigned to those judges. Sadly‚ that body bowed to the pressure and created new guidance for assigning certain cases—all to soften the criticism coming from the Left. The Judicial Conference of the United States serves as the “principal policy-making body” for the federal judiciary. The chief justice heads the conference‚ and other judges from various lower federal courts serve as members alongside him.  Chief Justice John Roberts has explained that Congress created the Judicial Conference just over a century ago to help ensure the “efficient administration of justice in the courts” and to create “managerial policy for the Judiciary.” But surely Congress never intended for the conference to engage in politics by trying to circumvent statutes that Congress itself drafted and that the president signed into law governing how the judiciary should operate. Yet that’s exactly what happened last week when the conference adopted and distributed its updated “Guidance for Civil Case Assignment in the District Courts.” This innocuous-sounding name masks the true intent behind the Judicial Conference’s problematic political play. Essentially‚ by adopting this new policy‚ the Judicial Conference has sought to silence criticism from those on the Left‚ like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer‚ and in the process‚ has done Schumer’s dirty work for him.  All of this stems from several recent decisions in high-profile cases where certain judges have ruled against the Biden administration. While some of those decisions have withstood review by higher courts‚ others have not.  Undeterred‚ those on the Left don’t want to risk facing a judge who might rule against them and have instead called for changes to how cases are assigned to avoid facing these judges. While they paint those on the Right as having engaged in “judge shopping” by bringing certain cases in front of certain judges‚ that’s really what they’re doing now by trying to keep certain cases away from certain judges. And the Judicial Conference has aided them in this effort. Consistent with the Constitution‚ Congress established the lower federal courts and enjoys broad discretion in regulating them. It put in place a statute empowering local district courts to set case assignment rules for cases that come before them. If those local courts can’t agree on a rule‚ the relevant appellate court can step in and set the rules for them. Nowhere can the Judicial Conference set the case assignment rules. Congress didn’t give them this authority. Confusion initially reigned over whether the Judicial Conference purported to require courts to follow its new policy‚ or just strongly recommended it—though it’s obvious they can only do the latter. Stepping back even further‚ though‚ it’s clear that by trying to insert the judiciary into the political process and ostensibly make the courts less political‚ the conference’s action has done just the opposite. Rather than forcing Congress to vigorously and publicly debate changes to the current statute governing case assignments in federal district courts‚ the conference jumped into the fray and made the change itself—sparing Schumer from having to publicly debate the merits of his proposed policy changes. Of course‚ this drew the ire of Republican senators in the process—though this move should draw the ire of all who care about judges being apolitical. Showcasing the lack of need for the Judicial Conference’s policy‚ the three federal district courts in Alabama released a report before the Judicial Conference’s policy became public‚ showing that the lower federal courts can appropriately deal with judge shopping when it happens. The judges noticed a problematic practice‚ convened a panel of various judges to investigate‚ and issued findings. Ironically‚ that panel found judge shopping and ethically problematic behavior coming principally from left-leaning attorneys from entities such as the Southern Poverty Law Center‚ LGBTQ Legal Advocates &; Defenders‚ the National Center for Lesbian Rights‚ the ACLU Foundation‚ ACLU of Alabama‚ Lambda Legal‚ and several private law firms.  Sadly‚ this isn’t the only instance where the Judicial Conference has taken controversial positions with political overtones. As I’ve previously lamented‚ “the reports of the Judicial Conference’s various committees are rife with references to programs under consideration to increase the diversity of staff and employees.” That raises questions about whether these programs comport with the Supreme Court’s recent decisions striking down racial preferences. The Judicial Conference should stick to advising courts on best practices and not engaging in politicking under the guise of making supposedly noncontroversial administrative policy recommendations. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Tipping the Scales of Justice to the Left? The Federal Judiciary’s New ‘Guidance’ for Assigning Cases. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

By a vote of 286-134 over conservatives’ objections‚ the House passed a $1.2 trillion spending package late Friday morning avoiding a partial government shutdown. The bill now goes to the Senate‚ where it is expected to pass. The 1‚000-plus-page package of bills includes funding for the State‚ Education‚ Defense‚ Labor‚ Homeland Security‚ and Health and Human Services departments in fiscal year 2024 as well as for “general government and foreign operations” and the Internal Revenue Service‚ The Hill reported. “Democracy is messy‚” House Speaker Mike Johnson‚ R-La.‚ said on CNBC the day before‚ amid opposition to the spending package from conservative House Republicans. “It’s particularly messy right now and in a moment like this‚ but we have to get the job done and there are some very substantial wins in here.” Democrats mostly supported the spending bill. “We had to work within difficult fiscal constraints—but this bipartisan compromise will keep our country moving forward‚” Sen. Patty Murray‚ D-Wash‚ said Thursday. Heritage Action for America‚ the grassroots arm of The Heritage Foundation‚ issued a press release Thursday evening detailing what’s wrong with the spending bill and identifying it as a key “no” vote on the organization’s legislative scorecard. ?KEY VOTE?Heritage Action OPPOSES the Second FY24 Six-Bill Minibus (Further Consolidated Appropriations Act‚ 2024).This $1.2 trillion spending package continues the disastrous spending that fuels inflation &; funds Biden’s border crisis.Learn more?https://t.co/jI8QI3uNI4 pic.twitter.com/tTqND0OXX7— Heritage Action (@Heritage_Action) March 21‚ 2024 “This bill doesn’t deviate from Congress’s charted course toward financial catastrophe and participation in the border crisis‚” the key-vote description reads. “Inflation and job losses caused by Congress’s failures to cut spending penalizes America’s working class and those struggling to afford the American dream. The American people have pleaded for responsible spending and border security for years‚ but unfortunately‚ this minibus represents a continuation of business as usual.” The spending package met increasingly fierce opposition from conservatives. Many lawmakers criticized it for spending so much but doing so little to provide border security. “Less than 24 hrs to review – the #SwampOmnibus – 1000+ pages &; $1.2 Trillion – busts spending caps to fund the WHO‚ woke DOD‚ a weaponized FBI new headq‚ &; 100% fails to stop Progressive Democrats’ mass releases of criminals across our borders‚” Rep. Chip Roy‚ R-Texas‚ wrote Thursday in a post on X. Some proponents said voting against the spending package would be a boon to China. Opponents countered that the bill would empower potential Chinese terrorists crossing the border. “A vote for today’s atrocious spending bill is a vote for Chinese terrorism‚” Rep. Andy Biggs wrote on X‚ formerly Twitter. We’ve had over 30‚000 illegal aliens from China cross our border under this Administration’s border policies. You vote for it‚ you own it.” A vote for today's atrocious spending bill is a vote for Chinese terrorism.We've had over 30‚000 illegal aliens from China cross our border under this Administration's border policies.You vote for it‚ you own it. pic.twitter.com/nlrLGh99IU— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) March 22‚ 2024 “Well‚ the D.C. cartel is at it again. They released a $1.2 trillion minibus at 2:32 a.m. this morning‚ giving us somewhere in the neighborhood of about 48 hours to review it before they’re going to bring it up for a vote‚” Rosendale said in a video he shared on X. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green‚ R-Ga. filed a motion to vacate to remove Johnson from the speakership. BREAKING NEWS — @RepMTG has filed a motion to vacate @SpeakerJohnson‚ according to multiple sources on the House floor. Stay tuned for more info…..— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) March 22‚ 2024 Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Conservatives Protest as House Passes $1.2 Trillion Spending Package appeared first on The Daily Signal.

At Planet Fitness‚ you can exercise everything but your right to privacy. That’s the message customers are taking to heart after an Alaskan woman had her membership revoked for complaining about a man in the women’s locker room. The gym is a “no judgment zone‚” Patricia Silva was told. Well‚ it’s about to become a profit-free zone‚ too‚ thanks to angry Americans who are putting the company’s stock in a $400 million free-fall. In a perfect snapshot of where corporate wokeness will lead these days‚ the media is reporting that within five days of Silva’s story hitting social media‚ Planet Fitness lost almost a half-billion dollars in value—crashing 7.8% in less than a week. “The company’s value dropped from $5.3 billion on March 14 to $4.9 billion on March 19‚” reports show‚ “and its shares are down by 13.59% compared to a month ago.” Despite the pushback‚ the business stubbornly stuck by the mixed-sex policy‚ insisting that it doesn’t matter if members felt uncomfortable. “This discomfort‚” the company’s operational manual argues‚ “is not a reason to deny access to the transgender member.” In a video she took from the Fairbanks location‚ Silva said‚ “I just came out of Planet Fitness. There is a man shaving in the women’s bathroom‚” viewers find out later after she posts a picture. “I love him in Christ‚” she makes clear. “He is a spiritual being having a human experience. He doesn’t like his gender so he wants to be a woman‚ but I’m not comfortable with him shaving in my bathroom. I just thought I’d say it out loud.” When Silva confronted the man in the restroom‚ he replied‚ “Well‚ I’m LGB … .” She interrupted‚ “But you’re a man invading my space!” She ultimately walked away and went to the front desk. “‘Are you aware that there is a MAN shaving in the women’s bathroom?’” she asked. “‘ … I’m not OK with that.’ The two men standing at the desk‚ put their heads down and their tails between their legs!” Silva recounted. “As I was walking out the door … at my back‚ a woman shouts‚ ‘It’s a girl! … I shouted back‚ ‘It’s a man!’” Silva was especially irate that a young girl‚ who “could have been 12 years old‚” was exposed to the same man. She stood in the same room in a towel and “kind of freaked out.” The next day‚ she posted on Facebook that she got a call from Planet Fitness “announcing that they have chosen to cancel my membership rather than protect [young] girls and women … that enter the women’s locker room from men with a penis. … Despicable.” And yet‚ even now‚ flooded with complaints and nationwide criticism‚ the company stands by its decision‚ telling Libs of TikTok that the staff will “work with members and employees to address this discomfort [sharing facilities with transgender members] and to foster a climate of understanding consistent with the ‘Judgment Free’ character of Planet Fitness.” Then‚ doubling down‚ the business vowed to continue calling trans-identifying customers by their preferred pronouns and “other terms consistent with their self-reported gender identity‚ if reasonably known to the Planet Fitness staff.” None of this should come as a surprise‚ since the company has a long and unflattering past of siding with trans activists over women who feel victimized by their male presence. In 2015‚ Yvette Cormier‚ a member of a Michigan branch‚ had the exact same experience—well before the movement had risen to the public prominence it has now. “Freaked out‚” she complained to the desk that there was a man in her restroom. She was shocked to find the on-duty staff taking his side. Stunned‚ she contacted Planet Fitness’s corporate office—where she heard more of the same. The gym‚ she was told‚ is a “no judgment zone”—but apparently not for everyone. When Cormier started warning women about the policy‚ Planet Fitness revoked her membership. “This is very scary‚” she told reporters at the time. “I feel like it’s kind of one-sided. I feel like I’m the one who is being punished.” She sued. In Leesburg‚ Florida‚ six years ago‚ the same thing happened. “Mrs. H” confronted the man in her locker room and told him to leave. For more than an hour‚ he refused to go‚ watching every woman coming and going from his spot near the door. “Despite a male employee observing that [Jordan] Rice’s behavior was ‘over the top‚’ staff did not intervene and ask him to finish his business‚ but permitted him to monopolize the women’s locker room.” For Mrs. H‚ who’d survived an attempted rape‚ it was a traumatic experience to say the least. All she wanted was the privacy to change and shower—instead she got something else; namely‚ a notice that her membership had been canceled. She took the gym to court. Conservatives remember the company’s one-sided trans advocacy well. The Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon thought back to those cases‚ pointing out‚ “Planet Fitness was an early adopter of insane policies that allow adult men in women’s locker rooms with women and children. And of course the policies changed with little notice to customers. “When women complained‚” she explained‚ “they were ignored or kicked out. Women need to stand up for ourselves‚ but we also need the men who love us to stand up for us as well. I am grateful that so many good men do. If it takes hurting them financially to make a difference‚ I’ll take that. But it’s cold comfort.” For now‚ the wave of consumer activism that brought Bud Light‚ Target‚ RipCurl‚ and Doritos to their knees is in full force. And rightly so‚ the army of boycotters say. “The most offensive thing you can do to a woman is pretend she doesn’t exist‚” Paul Szypula tweeted. “Because Planet Fitness has chosen this path their gym‚ will‚ ironically‚ soon not exist. The universe has a way of balancing things out.” The most offensive thing you can do to a woman is pretend she doesn’t exist.Because Planet Fitness has chosen this path their gym will‚ ironically‚ soon not exist.The universe has a way of balancing things out.— Paul A. Szypula ?? (@Bubblebathgirl) March 21‚ 2024 Libs of TikTok‚ which helped break Silva’s story‚ is surprised CEOs need the warning at this point‚ but posted‚ “Turns out people don’t want to support companies who cave to gender pseudoscience and allow men in women’s private spaces! #BoycottPlanetFitness Do not let up! Keep it going!” Whoa. Planet Fitness saw $400 Million wiped off its value since we broke the story of them allowing men in female lockers rooms and then banning the woman who exposed it.Turns out people don’t want to support companies who cave to gender pseudoscience and allow men in womens’… pic.twitter.com/s55gBryFjD— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 21‚ 2024 Originally published by The Washington Stand Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Angry Americans Muscle $400 Million Away From Pro-Trans Planet Fitness appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Migrants break barriers and rush border guards in shocking scene at El Paso

Avoid These 7 Common Greenhouse Gardening Mistakes

Fool Proof Way To Plant Carrots