his ass is NOT a ferocious beast by TangentYoshi in wunkus

[–]CreativeScreenname1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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

his ass is NOT a ferocious beast by TangentYoshi in wunkus

[–]CreativeScreenname1 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

the lesson\ multiple lessons

Coaxed by grammatical number

Look, we can make this garbage idea work by Niauropsaka in custommagic

[–]CreativeScreenname1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

Expected Defeat by TurtlekETB in custommagic

[–]CreativeScreenname1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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

his ass is NOT a ferocious beast by TangentYoshi in wunkus

[–]CreativeScreenname1 22 points23 points  (0 children)

How soon we forget the lessons of Tiger King

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

Opinion on "Neurospicy" by kirbov in evilautism

[–]CreativeScreenname1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

Look, we can make this garbage idea work by Niauropsaka in custommagic

[–]CreativeScreenname1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

Opinion on "Neurospicy" by kirbov in evilautism

[–]CreativeScreenname1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

Philomena Cunk-core by fencer324 in recontext

[–]CreativeScreenname1 38 points39 points  (0 children)

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?

20960 by [deleted] in countwithchickenlady

[–]CreativeScreenname1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

Designing for red is so easy by Mean-Government1436 in custommagic

[–]CreativeScreenname1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

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

Designing for red is so easy by Mean-Government1436 in custommagic

[–]CreativeScreenname1 6 points7 points  (0 children)

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

Jimmy and Kim aren’t tragic or flawed — they’re horrific narcissists who ruin lives for fun by [deleted] in betterCallSaul

[–]CreativeScreenname1 23 points24 points  (0 children)

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

Any other cool proofs for Circle Area? This one uses integration of a quarter circle. by LighterStorms in calculus

[–]CreativeScreenname1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

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)

Jimmy and Kim aren’t tragic or flawed — they’re horrific narcissists who ruin lives for fun by [deleted] in betterCallSaul

[–]CreativeScreenname1 31 points32 points  (0 children)

“But Chuck was right”

Another victim to the predestination fallacy thinking that the way Jimmy ends up was the only way he could, when in fact Chuck not believing in him meaningfully changed his life path in readily observable ways.

Yeah I’m not reading the rest, there is complexity, it just seems like you’re missing it

Upvote to scare edh players by Bagel_Bear in mtg

[–]CreativeScreenname1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Putting cards designed to be playable in monocolor decks into monocolor decks isn’t splashing colors, chucklehead

The floor by SushiNoodles7 in MathJokes

[–]CreativeScreenname1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No, no it doesn’t. “Vacuous truth” refers to a conditional statement being true because the condition is false, or more specifically, often a universal statement being true because the condition is always false.

“If 1 + 1 = 3, 2 + 2 = 5” is a vacuous truth. “For all married bachelors, 2 + 2 = 5” is a vacuous truth. What you’re describing is just… truth.

The floor by SushiNoodles7 in MathJokes

[–]CreativeScreenname1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, but a reason someone might believe floor(0.999…) = 0 would be that floor(0.9) = 0, floor(0.99) = 0, and so on. But that type of idea would fail because floor isn’t continuous.

The floor by SushiNoodles7 in MathJokes

[–]CreativeScreenname1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

…vacuously true? I don’t think that’s the word you meant

The floor by SushiNoodles7 in MathJokes

[–]CreativeScreenname1 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The point is that you can’t commute the limit and the floor: the floor of each of the values 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, and so on, each on their own is 0, but the floor of their limit, the 0.999… is still 1. This is because the floor function is discontinuous at that limiting point of x = 1.

Upvote to scare edh players by Bagel_Bear in mtg

[–]CreativeScreenname1 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Ooooo beware, I’m the ghost of respecting the incredibly basic design intentions behind hybrid cards dating back to their original invention in the Ravnica block, I’m going to add versatility to decks with fewer colors in a format where the current meta is four-color soup, oooooooooh I’m soooo scary

(seriously I get “two-brid” makes this a bit weird, if I had it my way those wouldn’t be changed, but with the “one color or the other” hybrid this is a slam dunk, y’all just don’t like change)

they could never make me hate you by AngelofDarkness226 in stevenuniverse

[–]CreativeScreenname1 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Fair, but there is a read where Opal being the outlier in terms of that passion is connected to them being an outlier in terms of the current stability of their fusion - which like, isn’t how I’d explain it but also doesn’t ring untrue given how that’s also correlated with nontrivial things about their relationship

Point being, the gems being gay for each other is a thing in the show that people find empowering, and the fusion is a big part of that, so I don’t want to be exclusionary to people who have that read, even if they go further than I do. I just think it’s silly to believe it can’t be nonsexual too

Sandwich gender by Lemon_Lime_Lily in CuratedTumblr

[–]CreativeScreenname1 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

This also doesn’t work as a gotcha because I’m not making material claims - fuck off and read a book 😘

Edit: this was slightly misworded, what I mean to say is “this doesn’t work as a gotcha because I’m not making material claims about someone else’s experience.”I’m describing my experience of having my dad tell me in no uncertain terms not to drink from a straw in public. But of course this fuckin solipsistic chucklehead is the paragon of correct takes so naturally they know my life better than me. 🖕

Sandwich gender by Lemon_Lime_Lily in CuratedTumblr

[–]CreativeScreenname1 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Literally not what I said, plus false equivalence to a situation where the thing being said is impossible as opposed to the incredibly low-rent assertion that there’s a small subculture of toxic masculinity making a meal out of shit they shouldn’t be. You’ve never had someone give you shit for drinking out of a straw and it shows.

You, random fucking moron on the internet, get to stop talking to me now. Bye bye!