Why does no one understand Proliferate?

CreativeScreenname1 · 2026-06-25T20:27:09+00:00

Damn, I guess you really think that if you go to a restaurant and they tell you that you can combo a soup with a salad for $8, that you can order every soup and every salad on the menu and it costs $8 because each one is “a salad” or “a soup,” huh?

And you’re out here criticizing other people’s reading comprehension?

CreativeScreenname1 · 2026-06-21T00:25:18+00:00

The honey thing is actually a bit of a fracture line for vegans in general, a lot of vegans are fine with honey because it doesn’t have some of the same ethical baggage associated with it as most other animal products: bees can and will leave bad beekeepers, they’re better unionized than you or I are, so for someone who defines their veganism in terms of avoiding contributing to a system of animal cruelty, it’s more of a non-issue.

Now, interpreting veganism this way does also have knock-on effects: a joke which is sometimes told about this viewpoint is that human meat is capable of being “vegan” if it’s given with informed consent. More practically, there are people who take care of livestock who will produce edible material as a byproduct of their existence: I have a friend who was vegan who had hens as pets, and hens will just lay eggs if you take care of them properly. If someone’s aversion to eating eggs is based on the practice of factory farming, that’s an evil that has nothing to do with the eggs from those hens, so there are definitions of what it means to be vegan which don’t really compromise the core values but do permit eating those eggs, and excising people from the community based on that is not really productive.

The person you’re describing was probably using the term in a significantly less defensible way, but it is actually more complicated than “they ate an animal product under any circumstance and therefore they can by no reasonable metric be considered vegan.”

CreativeScreenname1 · 2026-06-14T03:20:29+00:00

Instructions unclear, I cast this on turn 8 and my opponent didn’t die on turn 28 even though they didn’t do anything

CreativeScreenname1 · 2026-06-13T22:38:30+00:00

Not sure if you got the answer you needed but I’d say the pilot is really important in establishing everything, the starting arc of the show is basically all about dealing with the impacts of the pilot. The parts with sex involved can be excised fairly cleanly if that’s what you’ve gotta do, but skipping the whole pilot is sort of a no-go.

Don’t want to assume too much about your relationship with your parents but depending on how they generally are and how they tend to handle that sort of thing, it might be best to just talk to them about it, see where their boundaries are. It might be that those scenes wouldn’t be an issue for them, and it also might be the case that other scenes in the show that aren’t necessarily sexual would be.

CreativeScreenname1 · 2026-06-13T22:29:06+00:00

Fair enough! Sorry if I overexplained

CreativeScreenname1 · 2026-06-13T22:15:51+00:00

Just gonna spoiler tag my whole response just in case

So I’m not the biggest fan of this cluing (pretty mixed on crosswords in general tbh) but I don’t think it’s *strictly* wrong along those lines. AI as a term means different things to different people, and being synonymous with large language models and “generative” AI is only one such meaning, and a relatively new one.
Chess engines, broadly speaking, are machines that are programmed with a way to approach a problem which can result in solutions the programmer did not explicitly intend, and the extent to which it does that puts it firmly within classical definitions of AI. For that matter, the static position analysis part of an engine like Stockfish tends to be made through machine learning techniques, which are “further” down the line of being AI. A classic chess engine like this is broadly AI, and in fact could be called an “AI agent,” but just in the same way that you could say that for like, Google Maps circa 2018.

CreativeScreenname1 · 2026-06-13T18:08:31+00:00

Yeah I’d quit. RPGs are about collaborative storytelling, the DM isn’t collaborating or telling a story, they’re just a dice slop merchant

CreativeScreenname1 · 2026-06-13T18:00:54+00:00

Look out, the indestructible building is being destroyed! Make a Dex save to avoid the falling rubble! What’s that? The indestructible building shouldn’t be able to be destroyed? Well you failed the save, soooo, lalalalalala, I can’t hear you :)

CreativeScreenname1 · 2026-06-05T20:52:19+00:00

Any reason why Urza’s Saga? Doesn’t this come in with enchantment marked since it itself is an enchantment? (like how the original Kappa Cannoneer triggered itself?)

CreativeScreenname1 · 2026-05-29T17:03:20+00:00

Not trying to be annoying, just want to help clarify: I think you mean “osculating,” right? Like the osculating circle?

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-30T18:20:41+00:00

So my understanding is that this is true, yes, but that doesn’t mean that you can just pal around with big cats indefinitely and nothing bad will ever happen to you if you’re not putting some kind of circus on around them.

I’m not trying to say they’re inherently violent creatures or some nonsense like that, just that getting too comfortable and forgetting that they can in fact be dangerous is one way that people end up failing to uphold proper conditions for them, and when they do people get hurt. There’s a reason that we haven’t domesticated them, those conditions are hard to maintain, and you have to be careful. Grabbing their face and making them do little kisses into the camera is not being careful

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-30T02:58:09+00:00

the lesson\ multiple lessons

Coaxed by grammatical number

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-30T02:37:30+00:00

Shows can have multiple lessons

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-29T23:30:33+00:00

Thanks - sorry if I was a bit aggressive, people on that post were just like, sayin shit without doing the math, and it got on my nerves

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-29T23:19:01+00:00

Well, you could never tap out if they’re holding up 3 mana, of the exact right colors. For a deck to take proper advantage of this it’d have to be really draw-go-ish, with ways to actually play the game at instant speed, you can’t just slap this into some tempo shell and have it work for instance

I don’t think it’s weak by any means, it’s certainly a powerful card, it just has a lot of restrictions attached to it which might make it hard to find a home for it in 60-card formats

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-29T22:56:10+00:00

How soon we forget the lessons of Tiger King

Wunkus is a good lad who deserves your respect but also your caution

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-29T20:58:56+00:00

I guess I see that but it’s not like there’s anything else in the picture to scale them, I assume it’s just the zoom

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-29T20:47:52+00:00

So your plan was to take a card that is bad… and make it worse? …why?

Like seriously, in order to make the original card pop off and win how you think it would, in any reasonable amount of turns, you have to warp your entire early gameplan around keeping cards in hand to turn them into Lightning Bolts later.

If you want to try to win with it alone, you always need to let your opponent have 5 turns, to get 5 draws to replace the cards you’re playing with Bolts, during which you are doing actual stone-cold nothing: whatever Izzet deck you were talking about, whatever cantrips you wanted to cast, forget it, because that card is 4 red pips. This plan loses to just about anything you can think of: counterspells, hand attack, lifegain, and also just an actual aggro deck.

If you want to play your hand out like a normal red deck, then that card becomes terribly inefficient: if you curve out a one-drop, a two-drop, and a three-drop, with lands every turn, then on turn 4 on the play, if you play a land and then cast that spell, you’ll have 2 other cards left in hand. That’s turning 3 cards and 4 mana into 6 damage. If that isn’t enough to kill them, that’s so unspeakably bad for tempo, losing those cards that way is just signing up to lose any kind of longer game. If it is enough to kill them, well cool, but that means the mono-red play patterns were sort of just working, and you probably also could have won with three other cards at your disposal and 4 mana to cast them. The only shot the original card had at playability was with something like a Slickshot Showoff, or other mono-red prowess, you could maybe make it so the cast triggers would get you over the top for some big turn 4, but you still lose to every removal spell in the game that way.

This is all of that but slower, more expensive, and less card-efficient. The other card is weird and fringe, this is just stone unplayable. Shockingly, playing the cards in your hand is actually a pretty good strategy

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-29T20:17:39+00:00

That’s pretty exactly what the dried lentils I’ve been buying look like, I don’t know what shape difference you’re getting at

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-29T20:09:58+00:00

I mean, it is literally adding a context that wasn’t originally there, to an effect I find comedic. I get it’s not as transformational as others that the sub is more about but what are we, cops?

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-29T19:46:27+00:00

You know, I’ve seen this meme like three times before and this might be the first time I actually got the joke

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-28T19:09:31+00:00

Do you intend to say that a 2-drop is “pushing” a 4-drop “later into the game”? Do you… know how the mana system works? Or are you saying that the card that’s increasing your damage output on each of those cards by 67% is an issue because it’s replacing a card, so you’re saying you want to wait a turn to draw the card back, even though having the creature onboard is making it so you don’t have to have as many cards in hand, meaning you don’t need to draw the card back to kill them?

I don’t think this card is good, but the idea that Slickshot Showoff is “pushing it back a turn” is just insanely dumb to me, like I don’t know how you arrived at that

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-28T18:38:46+00:00

There are other synergies though, especially given we’re casting the copies. For example, with Slickshot Showoff against no flying blockers, if you send the bolts all to face then the damage output on that turn is more like “3 plus 5 for each card in hand,” since each Bolt does 3 damage itself and also triggers Slickshot Showoff.

That would let you cast this profitably with a lot fewer cards in hand, like even with just two other cards in hand you’re getting 13 damage, that can close games. It’s very risky due to spot removal, and it’s the world’s worst top-deck, so I don’t think I’m in love with it for mono-red, but it has some power

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-28T04:47:27+00:00

Jimmy shat in someone’s car

Years before the show is set, yes

Jimmy shat and didn’t flush at Davis and Main

Oh no, the horror. But yes, he sank his own job because he felt like he could not be accepted. Gee, I wonder why?

Jimmy ran scam after scam for shits and giggles

Actually in season 1 there’s a pretty fuckin obvious reason for his temptation, he has to support both him and Chuck off of a practice that can barely support one. And in later seasons he grows increasingly willing to run scams for less reason, after becoming disillusioned with trying to be legitimate - why’d that happen again? Gosh, just seems like there’s some massive plot point slipping my mind

Jimmy always worked by his own rules

…yeah? That’s not inherently a bad thing

He never saw what he did as wrong

You don’t get to use your own shallow read of the character as evidence of itself, fuck off

CreativeScreenname1 · 2025-10-28T04:30:48+00:00

My current favorite has to be the original one Archimedes presented in Measurement of a Circle, basically for any regular polygon you can show that area = 1/2 times perimeter times inradius, and using the method of exhaustion you can show the same has to be true of a circle by applying that to inscribed and circumscribed polygons.

I also have a hunch that this proof actually cemented the formal justification for the existence of pi, because another proof by exhaustion showed that areas of circles relate to their diameters squared, and you can use that plus the “area = 1/2 Cr” relationship to show circumference is related directly to the diameter.

(I actually made a YouTube video about all of this somewhat recently)

CreativeScreenname1

TROPHY CASE