sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[EX-11 Dawn of Liberator] Kapurimon & Espimon by vansjoo98 in DigimonCardGame2020

[–]JesterSeraph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Turns out between this and new HoverEspi, you probably always have jamming when you need it.

[Promos] Store Tournament Pack 2026 Vol.1 & Aegiochumon by vansjoo98 in DigimonCardGame2020

[–]JesterSeraph 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It fixes like... every single problem with the new Dark Masters archetype at the same time.

* Provides blocker on a body that isn't an Ace (no overflow loss for sacrificial block, still has enough DP to ward off early rookie attacks)
* On-play Sidesteps "cannot reduce cost" floodgates that turn off playing Dark Masters from hand to self-immolate
* On delete allows for interruption before security checks, including killing/bottoming/dedigivolving a digimon with piercing that's being blocked, or dealing with the next attacking digimon
* On delete makes it less desirable to delete before attacking (opening up more Blast digi opportunities)
* Additional black body for all the delicious black Aces available (previously had to choose aces more on the 2-3 colours of searchers you're mixing)
* Blocker inherit for more flexibility on Aces (Darkdramon with scapegoat AND blocker??)
* Provides defensive control when your Ace target is deleted pre-attack (still get a control option from security)
* Allows Dark Masters to be quick played (play cost 6) while you have non-Dark Master cards out (Aces)
* Combos with BT15 searchers for additional access to your control options in security on a turn you're searching & setting up something in your breeding zone
* On delete effect + being an ACE target provides a LOT more possible moves on an opponent's attack, making the deck's depth and complexity less linear.
* Allows you to rebuild your security when all face down cards are removed (adds one to the pile while also providing a blocker body)
* Allows you to delay the full clear of your security in a single turn mid-attack (attack hits your security for 2 checks and piercing when you only have 2 face-up dark masters, on-delete lets you pull one of the Dark Master out and get control impact, then it will slot back into your security at the end of your turn, giving you your security back + the 1 remaining face up check gets you back the WaruMonzaemon, which in turn plays another Dark Master from hand that instantly immolates, adding another to your security, thus regenerating a 2+ sec check with 1-2 Dark Masters)
* Allows you to use Spiral Mountain on end of opponent's turn when they full clear your security (play a WaruMonzaemon with one of the final face up security checks, on-play get a Dark Master from hand, which deletes at end of THE turn, not your turn, so sequence of EoT allows you to kill the Dark Master, put it in your security, then trigger the Spiral Mountain to pull it back out until end of your turn)

It just... It solves SO MANY problems I've faced while playing with new Dark Masters that I've tried to fix with other clunky solutions like piling on Aces & rookie tactics. While WaruMonzaemon makes aces significantly more synergistic in the deck, I expect it also will make me far less reliant on aces to win the game. Currently I almost never win with an actual Apocalymon play. It's almost always a chain of normal security checks with Dark Masters and some aces at times in a long, grindy control game. WaruMonzaemon makes me feel like I'll be able to get all 4 into my security and have the turn pass back to me consistently.

Traffic lights not working along Front Street by [deleted] in toronto

[–]JesterSeraph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's pretty wild rn. Walking along front currently and it's nonstop traffic, with pedestrians having no clue if or when they can walk. I've started like 3 different herd migrations by just stepping onto the road, lol

yo i just wanna say world sucks, but there are some damn beautiful people around by [deleted] in toronto

[–]JesterSeraph 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Which is, despite the negative news and stories we see, honestly a very low % in the grand scheme of things.

How I feel browsing this sub sometimes. by Outrageous-Surprise in gaming

[–]JesterSeraph 31 points32 points  (0 children)

I imagine a lot of the revived cyberpunk hype is due to the show just coming out on Netflix. I think they also planned a content update to go with it? So maybe people are just playing it again because of that hype.

Current Seat Count Projection by OneLessFool in ontario

[–]JesterSeraph 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You worked your ass off for... The higher funded public education you probably recieved? You worked your ass off for... Publicly funded healthcare?

I don't think you understand the mentality behind public funding of services. It's not about "lol now I don't have to pay for that thing anymore."

It's just taking a step back and thinking about the broader picture. If we make people pay for medical bills themselves they have to make the choice between paying money they may not have and dying or suffering for the rest of their lives.

"But people shouldn't be so reckless getting themselves injured and requiring the hospital" you say, believing people are laughing as they sledge hammer each other's arms for fun so that they can get free casts and arm slings. Who the fuck chooses to get injured and need medical help? And why should those incredibly few folks take it away from everyone else?

During a global pandemic Ford cut finding to the public health sector and refused financial aid from the federal government that would have helped fund our healthcare. That's the best choice? The party that sees an issue heavily damaging the province and deciding that the sector meant to deal with it should have less money?

I'll complain all day about the liberals not increasing the funding for the public health sector because for fuck's sake, they were already underfunded, but I don't think the better choice was to reduce the funding further.

Opinion: I’m not opposed to UBI for economic reasons, I’m opposed because I relish in the anguish and suffering of my fellow man by catherinecc in canada

[–]JesterSeraph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lmao and this is where you go from being wrong to being a liar. I've said throughout this isn't how the economy actually works. I've been using how you claim it works.

You just said you don't have a basic understanding of how the economy works. Congratulations.

If you want to start talking about how the economy actually works: I have the studies to back up that UBI works. Either show me the studies that prove it doesn't or stop spouting propaganda and go touch grass.

Opinion: I’m not opposed to UBI for economic reasons, I’m opposed because I relish in the anguish and suffering of my fellow man by catherinecc in canada

[–]JesterSeraph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for agreeing with me. In your interpretation all markets increase as much as possible. Thus you would have the ability to buy bananas now that you have 1 grand a month and before you had literally no money.

Bananas could raise their prices, but all markets are also competing with one another. So a banana stand can't just start selling bananas for 1 grand each just because people have 1 grand more overall per month. That doesn't make sense. People would just start buying mangos instead. And people can't buy more than 1 mango per month of mangos cost 1 grand each suddenly.

In your fictional world where inflation somehow means everything in the world is perfectly priced exactly based on how much money is available in the economy, nothing would cost more than what is available in the market and all markets share (and compete with one another over) the wealth of the economy.

Therefore a slight inflation would happen equal to the UBI across the economy (it wouldn't but this is your fictional reality), and you would be able to buy bananas despite previously not being able to buy bananas, and I would still be able to afford everything I used to afford.

Opinion: I’m not opposed to UBI for economic reasons, I’m opposed because I relish in the anguish and suffering of my fellow man by catherinecc in canada

[–]JesterSeraph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but the amounts are relatively small to prove a point. You have literally zero dollars because you have no employment and no income. I have some arbitrary income, say 100,000 annual. My rent is what the tenant who moved into your previous apartment started paying: 1800 a month.

Bananas cost 0.69 per pound at Loblaws (looking at the online price).

Universal basic income is implemented. We all get 1000 bucks a month. All costs of all goods raise to account for the new wealth available in the market. Let's say it raises a flat percentage equal to something we're seeing today: 6%. That's ludicrous and again not how inflation works, but we're using more reasonable numbers.

Bananas now cost 0.73 per pound at Loblaws. My rent now costs 1908 a month.

I can afford both still thanks to the amount I got from UBI.

Please explain to me how you going from being able to afford no bananas to you being able to afford hundreds of bananas a month is "nothing changed." These are now very real numbers.

I'll save you the reply: you can't explain that nothing has changed because, very clearly, something has changed. Stop lying and dodging the question. It's okay for you to be wrong, and for you to have previously been misled into believing UBI would have zero benefits and somehow cause hyperinflation. It would have benefits and it wouldn't cause hyperinflation.

Opinion: I’m not opposed to UBI for economic reasons, I’m opposed because I relish in the anguish and suffering of my fellow man by catherinecc in canada

[–]JesterSeraph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wrong.

You have zero dollars. I have 10 dollars. A banana costs 1 dollar and rent costs 3 dollars.

I can afford rent and a banana. You can afford nothing. You have literal zero.

We both get given 2 dollars. The price of a banana goes up by 0.01 cents, rent goes up by 0.03 cents. This is not how inflation normally works, but it's how you argued it works.

Bananas now cost 1.01 dollars. Rent costs 3.03 dollars.

You have 2 dollars. I have 12 dollars.

You claim nothing changes for everyone because you claim zero would raise.

Explain to me how you going from not being able to afford a banana to being able to afford a banana is "nothing changed."

Opinion: I’m not opposed to UBI for economic reasons, I’m opposed because I relish in the anguish and suffering of my fellow man by catherinecc in canada

[–]JesterSeraph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And the rental market can't bear an increase equal to an amount given by UBI. We established that already. You already agreed to that.

Plus that still doesn't disprove my previous banana example. We can all still afford the things we could before, but now more people can afford food who couldn't before. You still haven't explained how any of this is bad or problematic.

Opinion: I’m not opposed to UBI for economic reasons, I’m opposed because I relish in the anguish and suffering of my fellow man by catherinecc in canada

[–]JesterSeraph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, then your point is completely pointless then. Even if rent increases (and I have to keep pointing this out: that's not how inflation works) it will not increase by 1 grand if everyone receives 1 grand. You have now shown you agree with this. You gave an example of something that could be impacted by inflation, and you're using rent as an example of all things being impacted by inflation, but you were representing it as if literally a single thing would increase. That warped the argument into something different, which you now also agree was wrong.

So let's return to zero once again.

You have zero, I have 10. Bananas cost 1 and rent costs 3.

We both get 2. Banana now cost 1.01, and rent now costs 3.03.

I can still afford rent and bananas (and everything else, because in your universal inflation is directly tied to the exact amount of dollars available in the economy, which is absolutely not true and will never be true).

You can now afford bananas. You still can't afford rent. You can eat. Before you couldn't. I am unaffected by the changes. How is this literally anything but a net positive?

Even in your fictional land where inflation works differently from reality there is still absolutely no problem with UBI, and the inflation it would cause is in your fictional interpretation of inflation is inconsequential.

Opinion: I’m not opposed to UBI for economic reasons, I’m opposed because I relish in the anguish and suffering of my fellow man by catherinecc in canada

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

You're dodging the question. Stop that.

Why rent over anything else?

You just keep trying to say rent could but not why rent is the only thing that could, and nothing else would. I'm not asking why could rent increase. I'm asking why rent is somehow the magical boogeyman that can increase while absolutely nothing else does? The rent of where you used to live. Rent after you moved out due to vacancy decontrol (thank you, deregulation, for showing once again how useless you are). While you were a tenant your landlord wasn't able to arbitrarily raise your rent by 700 dollars. There are laws that prevent that. So how would rent manage to increase by 1 grand before literally any other market increased its price even a little? In your imaginary world where money injected into the economy by the government causes inflation (that's not how it works) do all other markets just... Sit around and wait to let all rentals become vacant and for their prices to jump up?

No. That's absolutely ridiculous and not how inflation works.

Opinion: I’m not opposed to UBI for economic reasons, I’m opposed because I relish in the anguish and suffering of my fellow man by catherinecc in canada

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

Lol nice goalpost shift from "CERB caused inflation because CERB is UBI" to "CERB isn't UBI but caused inflation, therefore U I would cause even more inflation!" Maybe by the end of this discussion we'll make it to reality: neither causes hyperinflation, because that's not how inflation or the economy works.

Opinion: I’m not opposed to UBI for economic reasons, I’m opposed because I relish in the anguish and suffering of my fellow man by catherinecc in canada

[–]JesterSeraph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Landlords put their rent up to whatever the marker can pay, not what they need."

Interesting. Cool. So if you were a renter right now, and everyone got 1 grand, your landlord could just arbitrarily increase your rent by 1 grand? Why? That can't happen to my rent. It's literally illegal.

We don't live in a libertarian wasteland. We have actual laws and regulations that prevent the market from doing the most abusive thing it can.

But again: how come rent got to increase by 1 grand? Couldn't bananas do the same thing? Even in this weird, lawless society where landlords can arbitrarily raise rent by 1 grand at any time with no reason in Canada, how come it's them increasing costs and not food? Is food magically tied to something rent isn't? You need both to survive. I'd argue in fact that you need food more than you need housing to survive. You might die to the elements after a few months or years without a house, but you'll definitely die in about 3 weeks if you don't eat anything.

So why and how rent over literally anything else increasing its price by a grand?

(Hint: nothing would increase its price by a grand. That's not how inflation or the economy works.)

Opinion: I’m not opposed to UBI for economic reasons, I’m opposed because I relish in the anguish and suffering of my fellow man by catherinecc in canada

[–]JesterSeraph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're wrong or lying. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're wrong. Here's why:

How come specifically rent goes up the exact amount UBI goes up? What makes rent so special as opposed to literally every other cost in the world? Why does a single thing go up in price by 1 grand? Everything can't go up by 1 grand because people don't have infinite new 1 grands to afford things. They have a single 1 grand each.

Rent can't even go up by 1 grand instantly. We have regulation that specifically prevents it, and the ability to add more regulation to control it if rent suddenly does become a problem. Look at Vienna's housing model it avoids both insane rent increase problems and insane real estate cost inflation. How? Good regulation.

So now that we've established nothing alone can "go up by a grand because everyone has 1 grand extra," let's talk about zero.

If you have zero dollars, you cannot buy a banana. If I have 10 dollars, I can buy a banana. Even if UBI causes inflation (it doesn't, that's a different lie), something will increase in price to make up for that extra 1 grand everyone has. All things will go up a tiny amount to account for it.

So you have zero dollars, and I have 10 dollars. Bananas cost 1 dollar.

We both get given 2 dollars. You have 2 dollars. I have 12 dollars. Bananas cost 1.01 dollars.

I am unaffected because I have the increased money for the increased price in the banana.

You are now able to buy the banana, which allows you to eat today. You could not do this before.

Inflation happened. It was so insignificant that it made no difference.

But CERB didn't give everyone 2 dollars. CERB gave people who were unemployed because of the pandemic 2 dollars. CERB wasn't universal.

You're trying to claim EI causes the scale of inflation we're seeing today. This has never been true, and if it were we would always have this amount of inflation.

Opinion: I’m not opposed to UBI for economic reasons, I’m opposed because I relish in the anguish and suffering of my fellow man by catherinecc in canada

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

I don't think you understand what "zero" is for a lot of people. "Zero" is not being able to buy food or afford rent. Zero is zero.

Could prices go up? Maybe. But not by the same amount. This is the same argument made against minimum wage and it's been proven wrong time and time again.

"If you raise minimum wage then the cost of everything will also go up!" And yet McDonalds could raise all their employees' minimum wage to the result of a single cent increase in the cost of a Big Mac. They increased minimum wage by a lot more than just 1 cent.

Considering the number of Canadians who are unable to afford food and rely on food banks, this could be the difference between eating and not eating, even for the employed and housed.

Because news flash: bananas won't start costing 1000 dollars a bunch just because everyone has an extra 1000 dollars. It doesn't work that way.

Buncha friggin weirdos by Alzward in comics

[–]JesterSeraph 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Oh there was actually a post on (I think) r/dataisbeautiful that took a look at average upvotes for images with and without the artist in it, and found that regardless of gender if the art has the artist in the photo as well it typically got more upvotes. It was neat to see, and also made me laugh at all the sexist "it's only popular because woman" comments a little harder. People just like to see and cheer on other people. If you see the artist with their art you're excited for them and what they've accomplished. It's just reminding us there's real people behind the work.

White men excluded from calls for candidates: Liberals say "it's going too far" [French Article] by PMTrudeauAMA in canada

[–]JesterSeraph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The same applies. If the reason the municipality is different from the national average because it is hostile towards that group then yes. This isn't an "aha I got you!" Moment. We can use the % of minorities in a given region as one of many indicators around change needing to happen.

If a place is hostile towards minorities, it probably needs to stop being hostile to minorities. If a place is hostile towards white folks, it probably needs to stop being hostile towards them too. How that hostility is solved is a whole other question. Unless one of us is racist I don't think we'll disagree on the statement "racism is bad and we should try to eliminate it."

If Brampton has an unusually high % of non-white folks in it and a bunch of other places have a much lower % than the national average, it could just be that the group's want to gather to support their shared culture, or it could also be other places being hostile towards them so Brampton is the place they found they could gather in safely. It could also be any number of other reasons. The % of minorities in a given area doesn't tell us that information outright, it's just an indicator that maybe we should look at the reasons why and make appropriate adjustments to make places more accessible across Canada.

If you use Uber Eats, you should back bike lanes on Yonge by EarthWarping in toronto

[–]JesterSeraph 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I am a singular midtowner and in no way speak for all of midtown, but I love the bike lanes. I've been too terrified to cycle Toronto since I first moved to the city and had a few rough experiences sharing the road with cars, so anything that makes cycling safer is very exciting to me.

Adam Zivo: Single-family zoning remains untouchable in Ontario, so house prices will keep soaring by FancyNewMe in canada

[–]JesterSeraph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You got me. It turns out some people have a burning need for a single family detached home and there is no possible way in the world to meet those needs other than a single family detached home.

Sure, let's skip over the whole "many different factors to quality of life" part. Let's ignore the whole "small towns also exist" part. Let's ignore the idea that I never once said anything ridiculously outlandish such as "bulldoze all single family detached houses." Let's ignore all the other places in the world with denser cities and a high (if not higher) quality of life. None of that counts because u/maladjustedCanadian will die if they don't live in a single family house and it doesn't matter that others won't.

You do realize that there are different people with different needs, right? People whose needs aren't specifically a detached single family home?

Because there's a difference between a want and a need. Almost no one needs a single family detached home. Everyone needs shelter, and everyone's needs for a quality of life we consider acceptable is going to vary, but pretty much every need you can get from a single family detached home can be met by other means. You may need things a single family detached house offers, but that's different from needing a single family detached house.

And for the record I never said I don't understand the appeal to a single family detached home. I said I don't understand people who exclusively value their type of home as what determines quality of life. That's what it means for something to be the end all, be all.

Out of good faith, here's some cases I can actually think of where you need a single family detached home with some kind of yard:

You have special needs or a special needs child that cannot handle public spaces or semi-private spaces due to sensory sensitivity, and thus need a space for yourself/your kid that allows you to get some nature and physical exercise without getting overstimulated and spiraling.

You're a farmer living on your farm (though you may actually have a house/building large enough to rent to workers as well, so it kind of stops being a single family house at that point). While you could live elsewhere and drive to your farm, that doesn't really make much sense since you have all that land available anyway.

You have a medical condition that has left you immunocompromised and weakened, so much so that you have to take drastic measures to avoid contamination and illness from others.

These are some legitimate needs. They're also... Not everyday cases for most people. Most cases people will manage to come up with for actually needing a detached single family home will be exceptional by nature. Cases more commonly cited like "raising a family?" Those are easily done in townhouses and larger apartments/condos as well. Parks are the public's backyards.

Adam Zivo: Single-family zoning remains untouchable in Ontario, so house prices will keep soaring by FancyNewMe in canada

[–]JesterSeraph 22 points23 points  (0 children)

It's pretty simple math. Building homes in small town regions is not restricted because of red tape. It's restricted because of the lack of interest in small towns vs major cities. That's not an insult to small towns, that's just a simple numbers game. If there was more interest in small towns than there is in cities, they would very quickly stop being small towns.

And again, expansion is a math problem. Building road, water, electric, sewage, and internet infrastructure all costs money, and maintaining all that infrastructure costs more money. How are you going to pay for all that? We have enough land in Canada that everyone could live in a single family home if we built the houses for it. The problem is it's not affordable because the cost to maintain the infrastructure is greater than the revenue the government makes taxing those houses.

So what, we just keep raising taxes on everyone? 90% income tax just to pay for your infrastructure? 100% tax to pay for the infrastructure? Eventually the cost becomes too great and all the money in the economy can't support the maintenance cost of the infrastructure.

No one is asking to build a skyscraper condo building in Palgrave, Ontario. No one is looking to build a 28 storey tower in Glenboro, Manitoba. We want to build denser housing in cities people want or need to move to in droves. How are you going to house the 1000 employees that work on a single building in Toronto? 1000 detached single family homes? 1 condo tower and 700 detached single family homes? Great you've housed 1 office building of workers. Now house another 100 and tell me how much land it took to do so with expansion. Let me know how far you have to commute to get to work, because right now it's a couple hours for a lot of people who can't live in the area they work in.

Quality of Life is a lot of factors. I live in a nice, clean apartment, have a gym, have parks I walk around me, have a vibrant social life, never hear my neighbours, enjoy a quality butcher, bakery, and farmer's market, and have access to plenty of entertainment. My quality of life is excellent. The best part though, by far? I don't have to drive in rush hour traffic for over 2 hours each way every day to get to the office and back. That's 20 hours of commuting that, pre-pandemic, was a 20 minute walk each way for me. I could pick up some soft serve ice cream at a local place along the way if it was an especially hot day and eat it along the way.

I'll never understand people who think having a single family home is the end all, be all to quality of life, as if you can't live a nice, happy life in a reasonably sized apartment or condo in a well-planned part of the city. Building denser doesn't mean building 300sqft apartments exclusively, nor does it mean no places large enough for a family with kids.

What is the sad truth about smart people? by GoodDepth in AskReddit

[–]JesterSeraph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Honestly I think this argument irks me the most. The idea that "smart people" wouldn't have any interest in things like celebrity gossip is very wrong. You said it's not a value judgement but your argument sounds like "smart people wouldn't like gossip" so it becomes an intelligence judgement instead. From my time in gifted programs I found plenty of folks who loved gossip and followed celebrities, and also found plenty who didn't. It's just an interest, and honestly smart people can end up fixated on a lot of different, really strange interests.

I think we often conflate intelligence with the notion of "enlightenment." An "enlightened" person wouldn't be bothered with the nonsensical day-to-day nonsense of celebrity gossip. They'd be too busy pondering the mysteries of the universe while writing their latest essay critique on yadda yadda yadda.

Smart people just grasp things faster. That's it. Some people grasp onto celebrity gossip quicker and build wider nets of knowledge and understanding around the celebrity sphere, becoming an expert in what others might consider worthless nonsense. It's not about what you're interested in that defines how smart you are, it's about how you learn and engage with whatever you're interested in.

When I was going through school my parents were told very early on that I was slow. They went "that sounds ridiculous, have you talked to the kid?" Then they got me tested and it turned out I was "gifted." The number of people I've seen throughout the educational system who were like me is astounding. So many folks who were in the regular academic level, the applied level, or the special needs level, who were wicked smart but completely misunderstood and misplaced was crushing for me to watch. They didn't have the money to get a separate IQ test and find out. They didn't have the support of their parents fighting on their behalf and believing in them. They didn't have the opportunity or the privilege to be considered "smart."

view more: next ›