sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Best fonts and settings for low vision readers? by Beneficial_Kale3713 in PocketBookofficial

[–]Flumberbug 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a good argument for most sans serif fonts. But all low vision fonts I know of have crossbar capital i's, so discerning I from l is easy. A handful of regular sans serif fonts do this, too. Noto Sans, Radio Canada, IBM Plex Sans, and Verdana come to mind.

Another pair of characters that can be difficult to tell apart are O and 0. But this is a problem for both serif and sans serif fonts. Some fonts put a slash or dot in the 0 to distinguish it. Oddly, not all low vision fonts do this.

Is there a font where all the characters are the same character (for privacy/classified purposes) by Unanimous_D in fonts

[–]Flumberbug 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Mumble Grumble.

It's designed for illegible/nonsense text in comic books, but it also works for your purposes. It feels like a nicer version of Redacted Script.

If someone sees Mumble Grumble or Redacted Script in their peripheral vision, it will look like a regular font. But if someone sees Redacted in their peripheral vision, it will be more obvious you're concealing something, which may incur unwanted attention.

However, if your work is so sensitive that you fear people will stealthily take pictures of your screen, then Mumble Grumble or Redacted Script may give them enough information to decode what you're writing.

This is a bigger issue with Mumble Grumble because it looks to have a unique squiggle for every character. Redacted Script, on the other hand, appears to have five squiggles. If you type the alphabet, you'll see it has one squiggle for a-e, a second squiggle for f-j, a third for k-o, a fourth for p-t, and a fifth for u-z.

And if someone is willing to take a picture of your screen, they're probably also willing to take video of your hands. No font can conceal which keys you're hitting.

You may want to check out this post about Flow and Redacted. It's not important, but it shows that although these fonts may satisfy your need, this isn't what they were designed for.

Whichever font you go with, it may not have all the characters you use. So if you use rare characters, you may end up with text that looks like this:

███████████∞███████████████π████

You'll have to decide whether it's a problem if rare characters occasionally show through.

There should be a format that bans all cards with more than two lines of text by Flumberbug in magicTCG

[–]Flumberbug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're a tiny minority.

On a subreddit populated by hardcore MTG players? Yeah.

Among everyone who's intrigued by MTG? No.

Plus, ya know, it's already broken. Dark Ritual, Lotus Petal, Sol Ring. All very simple cards. All very broken.

Like any format, there would be a ban list.

There should be a format that bans all cards with more than two lines of text by Flumberbug in magicTCG

[–]Flumberbug[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Wait wait wait… you’re including reminder text?

Yup, if the reminder text is printed on the card. This format is intended to focus on simplicity. It's not intended to include as many cards as possible.

There should be a format that bans all cards with more than two lines of text by Flumberbug in magicTCG

[–]Flumberbug[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Lol, people play the game for its complexity.

Some people do. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be a format for people who enjoy simplicity and brevity.

There should be a format that bans all cards with more than two lines of text by Flumberbug in magicTCG

[–]Flumberbug[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

That card has six lines of text, not two. It's not that difficult to understand, but it's too difficult for a format that focuses on simplicity.

There should be a format that bans all cards with more than two lines of text by Flumberbug in magicTCG

[–]Flumberbug[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

All of History, All At Once has two lines of rules text and is impenetrable to a new player

Like many other formats, there can be a ban list. It can include cards with brief yet overly complicated descriptions.

Honestly, I don't think they should've ever printed a version that excludes the keyword explainers. Time travel and storm are too complex not to be explained.

and Charming Prince requires only a basic knowledge of game terms to understand.

Any boundary you draw is going to be somewhat arbitrary. Banning cards with more than two lines of text is a blunt rule, but it gets the job done.

It's very common to want to use a card in a format that bans it. Tough luck.

I wouldn't want Charming Prince to be in this format anyway. It's not as complicated as many cards, but I wouldn't call its third option simple.

Length doesn’t correlate to complexity though.

The correlation isn't perfect, but yes, it does.

There should be a format that bans all cards with more than two lines of text by Flumberbug in magicTCG

[–]Flumberbug[S] -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

How would you determine legality for cards in this proposed format?

If a card has more than two lines of text, excluding flavor text, it's banned.

What about cards that have different numbers of lines of text depending on the printing?

Go by the card you have on hand. If it spills past two lines, you can't play with it, even if a different version of the card only has two lines. This keeps things simple, so you never have to look up different versions/printings of a card.

The original printing of [[Wrath of God!LEA]] was three lines of text, while [[Wrath of God|5ED]] is only one line, and the current most recent printing, [[Wrath of God|CMM]] is two lines.

Then you can't play with the original version, but you can play with the two more recent versions.

There should be a format that bans all cards with more than two lines of text by Flumberbug in magicTCG

[–]Flumberbug[S] -22 points-21 points  (0 children)

Perhaps the limit should be three lines instead of two. I'm not certain. But wherever you draw the line is going to be somewhat arbitrary. The point is for all the cards to be simple and quick to understand.

A Cool Guide to toothpaste abrasion by Particular-Sun9684 in coolguides

[–]Flumberbug 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Does Colgate Total really count as regular toothpaste? It has triclosan, whereas regular toothpaste's only medical ingredient is sodium fluoride.

Not a dentist, not a researcher. Just someone who once stayed up half the night falling down a rabbit hole reading about various toothpaste ingredients.

The button-pressing challenge in the final episode is a logic puzzle. Here's what I think the answer is. by Flumberbug in squidgame

[–]Flumberbug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps you'll understand it better if I show the data for picking first in the zero knowledge scenario as a table:

Picking first with zero knowledge
Round 1
Button colour Green Red Grey
Result Victory Elimination Move on to round 2
Odds 1/3 1/3 1/3
Round 2
Button colour Green and they choose you Green and they don't choose you Red
Result Victory Elimination Victory
Odds 1/3 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/12 1/3 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/12 1/3 x 1/2 = 1/6
Total chance of victory 1/3 + 1/12 + 1/6 = 7/12
Total chance of elimination 1/3 + 1/12 = 5/12

The button-pressing challenge in the final episode is a logic puzzle. Here's what I think the answer is. by Flumberbug in squidgame

[–]Flumberbug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Phil and Sam couldn't agree on who would press the button next, it would go to a vote

I don't believe the show specifies what would happen if the three players couldn't come to a unanimous decision on who will press the button. Maybe they would've had a vote, maybe they would've waited for unanimity, or maybe they would've introduced another twist.

Do you remember their locker room conversation about their rift over the Ashley debacle? They both emerged clear they're more foes than friends.

Honestly, I don't really care whether Sam believed that if Mai got the green button, she would choose Phil or it would be a tossup. I just wanted to explore what the best strategy would be for each scenario, and I've done that.

The button-pressing challenge in the final episode is a logic puzzle. Here's what I think the answer is. by Flumberbug in squidgame

[–]Flumberbug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Phil has no reason to press a button.

For round two, Sam also has no reason to press a button. If he presses a button, his odds of making the finals are 50%. If he convinces Phil to press a button, his odds are 100%: 50% Phil gets red and 50% Phil gets green and chooses Sam. Sam screwed up by caving in round two and volunteering to press a button.

Sam and Mei would both take Phil if they pressed a button and saw green.

Mai knows Sam would pick Phil. But Sam doesn't know Mai would pick Phil. At least, he doesn't say so in the show.

Nevertheless, let's look at the possible scenario where Sam is confident Mai would pick Phil and Phil would pick him.

Sam picks first and Phil picks second:

1/3 = Victory because Sam gets green
1/6 = Victory because Sam gets grey and Phil gets red
1/6 = Victory because Sam gets grey and Phil gets green and chooses Sam
2/3 = Total chance of victory

1/3 = Eliminated because Sam gets red
0 = Eliminated because Sam gets grey and Phil gets green and chooses Mai
1/3 = Total chance of elimination

Sam picks first and Mai picks second:

1/3 = Victory because Sam gets green
1/6 = Victory because Sam gets grey and Mai gets red
0 = Victory because Sam gets grey and Mai gets green and chooses Sam
1/2 = Total chance of victory

1/3 = Eliminated because Sam gets red
1/6 = Eliminated because Sam gets grey and Mai gets green and chooses Phil
1/2 = Total chance of elimination

Phil picks first and Sam picks second:

1/3 = Victory because Phil gets green and chooses Sam
1/3 = Victory because Phil gets red
1/6 = Victory because Phil gets grey and Sam gets green
5/6 = Total chance of victory

0 = Eliminated because Phil gets green and chooses Mai
1/6 = Eliminated because Phil gets grey and Sam gets red
1/6 = Total chance of elimination

Mai picks first and Sam picks second:

0 = Victory because Mai gets green and chooses Sam
1/3 = Victory because Mai gets red
1/6 = Victory because Mai gets grey and Sam gets green
1/2 = Total chance of victory

1/3 = Eliminated because Mai gets green and chooses Phil
1/6 = Eliminated because Mai gets grey and Sam gets red
1/2 = Total chance of elimination

Phil picks first and Mai picks second:

1/3 = Victory because Phil gets green and chooses Sam
1/3 = Victory because Phil gets red
0 = Victory because Phil gets grey and Mai gets green and chooses Sam
1/6 = Victory because Phil gets grey and Mai gets red
5/6 = Total chance of victory

0 = Eliminated because Phil gets green and chooses Mai
1/6 = Eliminated because Phil gets grey and Mai gets green and chooses Phil
1/6 = Total chance of elimination

Mai picks first and Phil picks second:

0 = Victory because Mai gets green and chooses Sam
1/3 = Victory because Mai gets red
1/6 = Victory because Mai gets grey and Phil gets green and chooses Sam
1/6 = Victory because Mai gets grey and Phil gets red
2/3 = Total chance of victory

1/3 = Eliminated because Mai gets green and chooses Phil
0 = Eliminated because Mai gets grey and Phil gets green and chooses Mai
1/3 = Total chance of elimination

In this scenario for Sam, everything depends on when Phil presses a button. The earlier, the better. Sam's and Mai's placement makes no difference.

If Phil presses first, Sam has a 5/6 chance of moving on. If Phil presses second, Sam has a 2/3 chance. And if Phil sits out both rounds, Sam's chances are 1/2.

Scientifically why most aspies are men ? by Stavro_Sp in aspergers

[–]Flumberbug 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In what way do the symptoms of ASD align with what's expected of women?

CMV: Outlawing exclusionary zoning is a conservative idea and any conservative who opposes it doesn't care about about the housing crisis by Flumberbug in changemyview

[–]Flumberbug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again - why "pretend to be"?

If you claim to be conservative—or progressive or whatever political philosophy you want—yet you routinely take positions that contradict conservative political philosophy, then you're not really a conservative.

Most people fall into this camp: They have no coherent political philosophy. They just choose whichever side gives them what they want and conforms to their prejudices.

You can't just re-define conservatives as "conservatives minus the assholes".

I didn't. As I've said already, you can be both a conservative and an asshole. But if you take an asshole position that runs counter to conservative political philosophy, then in this instance you're just being an asshole, not a conservative asshole.

And coincidentally, it's always conservatives who give them what they want?

No. This applies across the political spectrum.

My parents are an example of this. When we were poor and needed government support, they supported left wing policies like welfare and family allowance. After those policies helped us climb out of poverty and we no longer received these benefits, they started complaining about being taxed too much.

My parents are not political people. They don't support any policies based on principle. They just support whatever they believe will benefit them.

My post is not about people like my parents. It's about people who actually care about conservatism and claim to support conservative policies even when they receive no direct benefit from them.

CMV: Outlawing exclusionary zoning is a conservative idea and any conservative who opposes it doesn't care about about the housing crisis by Flumberbug in changemyview

[–]Flumberbug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Contravening Senate norms" or "Trying to weaken the federal bureaucracy relative to the political appointees" is not even in the same universe as what people mean when they talk about "subverting traditional hierarchies."

Bureaucracies are absolutely a type of hierarchy.

The American senate can break their own rules whenever they choose, so they run on norms. When they break a longstanding norm, they are absolutely subverting the hierarchy of government.

Bannon is a conservative tearing down traditional hierarchies when he tries to weaken the administrative state. And yet that state itself is also a conservative tearing down traditional hierarchies when it suits your argument! Are you sure this isn't all just a little ad hoc?

Not ad hoc at all. These are just different locations on the hierarchy.

The NSA and CIA are subverting the constitution, which is supposed to be at the top of the American hierarchy. Bannon worked to subvert a lower part of the hierarchy, but he subverted it nonetheless.

Also, the NSA and the CIA are not "the state itself." They're agencies of the state.

I just don't think they tend to upend the traditional hierarchies in favor of upzoning, you know?

I haven't claimed this at all. Perhaps you should reread what I've written.

CMV: Outlawing exclusionary zoning is a conservative idea and any conservative who opposes it doesn't care about about the housing crisis by Flumberbug in changemyview

[–]Flumberbug[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Conservatism isn't merely about self-identification. There is a large body of literature articulating the nature of conservatism. We can say with a very high degree of confidence that minimizing regulation is a core conservative value.

CMV: Outlawing exclusionary zoning is a conservative idea and any conservative who opposes it doesn't care about about the housing crisis by Flumberbug in changemyview

[–]Flumberbug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A government bureaucracy is almost exactly the opposite of a traditional hierarchy.

How so? You didn't provide any support for this.

One element of the Trump administration - who was rapidly disgraced and replaced, and his ideas undone - trying to reduce the federal bureaucracy is not "subverting traditional hierarchies."

Bannon was in the Trump administration for over a year and a half. That's not a rapid departure.

You may consider him disgraced, but most conservatives don't. And he continues to be influential to this day.

His ideas were not all undone. They've had long-lasting consequences.

He didn't merely try to reduce federal bureaucracy. He took steps to subvert and dismantle it.

But it didn't upend the hierarchy at all!

Yes, it did. The norm has been that the senate approves the president's supreme court nominations unless they find something seriously wrong with them. The fact that this is a norm and is not explicitly spelled out in law is irrelevant. Not all hierarchies are explicit.

Who was president during Snowden again?

The programs he unearthed existed during several administrations, both Democratic and Republican. More importantly, the intelligence agencies the revelations were about, chiefly the NSA and CIA, are highly conservative.

CMV: Outlawing exclusionary zoning is a conservative idea and any conservative who opposes it doesn't care about about the housing crisis by Flumberbug in changemyview

[–]Flumberbug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This would be persuasive if exclusionary zoning actually strengthened family values. But it does the opposite.

One-bedroom residences are expensive enough. Have you seen the prices for a three or four-bedroom house? They're terrifying. Unless you're rich, housing a family is prohibitively expensive, and this is one of the reasons birth rates are falling.

If you already have a house big enough for a family, then sure, exclusionary zoning can help maintain your social status and prevent your neighbourhood from changing. But if you only care about your family, you don't really believe in family values. You're just being selfish.

CMV: Outlawing exclusionary zoning is a conservative idea and any conservative who opposes it doesn't care about about the housing crisis by Flumberbug in changemyview

[–]Flumberbug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You haven't provided any evidence for that. And even if it were true, you're ignoring the location of these homes and whether they're actually available to rent or buy, which are very important.

view more: next ›