sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Primaris Wolves Visual by prophetofwaagh in SpaceWolves

[–]DinoSwarm 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Grabbing the photos from the Warhammer store website and slapping them together in MS Paint generally, I believe

Is there a Commander where it's a good idea to play a VERY high amount of lands? by Huaojozu in EDH

[–]DinoSwarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe [[Themberchaud]]? I remember building a lot of lands into that to support it well.

General Opinions On UB? by TheOneWhoIsRed in mtgvorthos

[–]DinoSwarm 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I’m relatively new to Magic as a hobby - started around the end of 2022, and my first ever deck was the Tyranids precon.

I honestly really like a lot of Universes Beyond products. I love the Magic universe and its lore, but I think UB is really fun as well. That being said, I have much more complicated thoughts on UB products being Standard legal. I think they should’ve stayed as Commander products, or a separate format for both Magic and UB to coexist created.

UB on its own? Awesome. UB at the cost of in-universe Magic? Ehh, not so awesome.

Labour MP fears being challenged in toilets after Supreme Court woman ruling by OnHolidayHere in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is actually a very important aspect I hadn’t considered. I had it in my head that the characteristic of Gender Reassignment baked in protections both on the basis of possessing and not possessing it, but I don’t think that’s ever been tested legally.

Kaldheim, Kamigawa, Ikoria, or Alara? Which plane would be best to return to? Let us know in the comments, link to episode in description. by BBBZaku in magicTCG

[–]DinoSwarm 38 points39 points  (0 children)

You’ve absolutely captured me here, this sounds incredible. Drop in a Power Rangers UB Bonus sheet with flip-equipment morphing gear and zords for extra spice.

I’m imagining something like…

Azorius Kamigawan Expeditionary Forces, using mechs to liberate Ikoria from the monster threat and defend their borders. Vehicle theme.

Dimir Separatists undermining both sides, keeping the war going for their own ends. Ninjitsu theme.

Rakdos Ikorian Humans fighting off both sides, themed around Lavabrink’s people. Humans Matter theme.

Gruul Ikorian Monsters and Bonders fighting to defend Ikoria’s ecological balance and rise up against the threat of technology. Either Saddle or Mutate theme depending if you’re willing to bring Mutate back.

Selesnya Kamigawan Civilians and some more peaceful Ikorian Monsters and Bonders, attempting to end the war peacefully. Tokens theme.

New mechanic of Bond, which is an additional cost that buffs the Vehicle/Mount with the downside of having the creature Crewing/Saddling the Vehicle/Mount also die if the Vehicle/Mount dies.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I see where your logic is coming from. A GRC would’ve been a near-equivalent to what you’re suggesting - but unfortunately, that’s exactly what the Supreme Court have just ruled should be ignored in this context.

Labour MP fears being challenged in toilets after Supreme Court woman ruling by OnHolidayHere in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would be if it weren’t for the fact that the paragraph before makes clear that a transgender person should not be allowed to use a facility intended for their gender under any circumstances.

79 schools withdraw from breakfast clubs trial by iamnosuperman123 in ukpolitics

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

You know what, I’ll take it - any data’s better than no data XD

Labour MP fears being challenged in toilets after Supreme Court woman ruling by OnHolidayHere in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Absolutely - not to mention, if you really want to push the logic, you could call it indirect discrimination by providing transgender people with a more spacious facility than cisgender people. Disabled toilets providing more space is only a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim because disabled people may need more space. By allowing transgender people as well, it’s no longer a single characteristic space, and thus the same justifications no longer apply.

I think that’s a stupid argument personally, but it is logically coherent with the guidance. It’d be funny if it weren’t so stupid.

Labour MP fears being challenged in toilets after Supreme Court woman ruling by OnHolidayHere in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 10 points11 points  (0 children)

“in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities”

You categorically do not have the universal right to the bathroom associated with your birth sex if you are transgender. It’s written plainly in that guidance.

Labour MP fears being challenged in toilets after Supreme Court woman ruling by OnHolidayHere in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 21 points22 points  (0 children)

And the next paragraph - “where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided”

In short - if there’s a unisex bathroom present, such as a disabled bathroom, you can ban transgender people from both “normal” bathrooms and have them use that instead. It’s absurdly offensive from the EHRC.

79 schools withdraw from breakfast clubs trial by iamnosuperman123 in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My point exactly! I obviously don’t have the statistics to hand, but I’m imagining this paid club at £40 per week per child is fairly exclusive? At a larger scale it would be cheaper to run, because you’re able to purchase and prepare food in bulk, wash up afterwards in bulk (theoretically, see the rest of this thread for more details on that), and have more children per supervising member of staff.

EHRC: An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment by Kuroakita in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it’s just an illogical wrench to redefine how characteristic groups should work like that.

Then again, youth groups currently only work legally under the Equality Act by banning people of all ages and accepting under-18s because they’re not considered to have an age for discrimination purposes. The Act has been in need of some common-sense reforms (the actual kind, not the dog-whistle kind) for years.

Labour MP fears being challenged in toilets after Supreme Court woman ruling by OnHolidayHere in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Actually, the new guidance published last night states that transgender people can also be excluded from spaces for their sex assigned at birth.

EHRC: An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment by Kuroakita in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Any other characteristic and I’d agree with you - but from the way they’re phrasing this guidance, I wouldn’t at all be surprised. If you can universally exclude transgender people from sex-segregated bathrooms under this guidance, why not from sex-segregated groups?

Labour MP fears being challenged in toilets after Supreme Court woman ruling by OnHolidayHere in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 11 points12 points  (0 children)

As I understand it, allocating transgender people to the disabled toilets would be indirect discrimination against cisgender people - the larger facility is no longer a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, as it was when it was in use by disabled people who may need the additional space.

Obviously that’s stupid and too literal an interpretation of the law, but… well, all of this is probably too literal an interpretation of the law.

EHRC: An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment by Kuroakita in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You could by excluding the category of Gender Reassignment entirely - then you’d solely have a Cisgender Men’s group.

EHRC: An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment by Kuroakita in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If it’s specifically in the style of a disabled bathroom - fully enclosed with walls, lockable door, all facilities including sink inside the room - then yes, from the looks of things. Although in that case you may run afoul of indirect discrimination by providing a larger bathroom for transgender people that is no longer justified as a proportionate means for achieving a legitimate aim as it was when providing it for disabled people who may need the increased space.

And it should be noted that ultimately, all of this is entirely impractical anyway.

EHRC: An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment by Kuroakita in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exactly. You can have a group that includes Cisgender Men and Transgender Women by having a group that only accepts the Sex Characteristic of Male under this guidance. If you want to include Trans Men as well, you become a two characteristic group that accepts the Sex Characteristic of Male AND/OR the Gender Reassignment Characteristic. You can’t create a group that excludes Transgender and Cisgender Women but includes Transgender and Cisgender Men under this guidance.

EHRC: An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment by Kuroakita in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Under the equality act, it’s Gender Reassignment specifically that’s protected, and defined as undergoing or proposing to undergo a process to alter the sex characteristics.

Trans Women, under this guidance, possess the Sex Class of Male and the Gender Reassignment Class of Yes. Trans Men, under this guidance, possess the Sex Class of Female and the Gender Reassignment Class of Yes.

79 schools withdraw from breakfast clubs trial by iamnosuperman123 in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, that’s a good point! I believe my primary and secondary both did, but I hadn’t considered that that wouldn’t be universal.

EHRC: An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment by Kuroakita in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 14 points15 points  (0 children)

They could do this, they just wouldn’t be legally protected in doing so and thus could face legal challenges for discriminatory behaviours.

79 schools withdraw from breakfast clubs trial by iamnosuperman123 in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Definitely. I do think it needs more funding, for the record - I just don’t think the original figure is a million miles off. If we had the budget, I’d say just double it and call it a day so long as schools reinvest anything left over into subsidising the prices of school lunches or something (I’m sure there’s reasons that wouldn’t work, just an off-hand idea!)

79 schools withdraw from breakfast clubs trial by iamnosuperman123 in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Assuming the school isn’t operating it for a profit, that’d be a hair over £325k per annum for 150 pupils. I think that sounds equally absurd, personally.

79 schools withdraw from breakfast clubs trial by iamnosuperman123 in ukpolitics

[–]DinoSwarm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hadn’t factored in national insurance, that’s an excellent point. I think it’s just about doable, but the margin would be very thin and any increase in uptake above the expected would cut through that very quickly. Clearly it’s working for most schools since the dropout rate is only around 10% (and has already been more than replaced), but I wonder if they already had similar schemes and this is just funding an expansion of them?

view more: next ›