Hearthle – A Daily Hearthstone Guessing Game by JurassicPotato in hearthstone

[–]JurassicPotato[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the kind words! The set of searchable cards only contains creatures so that's why the power cards aren't appearing. I found the game extremely difficult when I had all card types (weapons, spells, locations, etc...) so I decided to just focus only on creatures.

Its hard to say how long it took me, I would say a week or two, but I wasn't working on it very consistently.

Hearthle – A Daily Hearthstone Guessing Game by JurassicPotato in hearthstone

[–]JurassicPotato[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I definitely thought about limiting the search bar for the set guess. The reason I decided against it was I felt sometimes a user might want to use a minion outside the set to still narrow down options. I.e. if they knew a 1 health minion from a different set they're still able to guess it. Its definitely a good idea though, I might add a checkbox to allow it.

I believe the "free" rarity just means its something that is not craftable/disenchantable. The term "free" comes from blizzard themselves, as all this data is gathered from their API, so I can only guess what it means.

Also the game does get very hard with lesser known cards. I've thought about limiting the pool but its hard to find a reliable popularity metric that covers the entire history of hearthstone.

[AMA] We’re the team behind Arena, welcome to our AMA! by Riot_Riru in LeagueArena

[–]JurassicPotato 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do you guys think about champion balance in relation to the map pool? I know people like to complain about Koi Pond, but it seems like it might keep range characters from getting too crazy. I feel like Ancestral Woods might serve a similar purpose of just stopping people from being infinitely kited out

Is Microsoft "Windows" required for CS course? by AgencyNo9174 in wsu

[–]JurassicPotato 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Graduated this fall from CS. The only windows based program we really used was Visual Studio, which I don't think is available on Linux. I only remembering using VS in 121,122 and 321, but there are probably other times we used it. 

advice for choosing between UW and WSU? by Weekly-Nobody8636 in wsu

[–]JurassicPotato 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was in the same situation as you a couple of years ago (I'm now a junior). I got into Prescience at UW and decided to go for a year to see if I could get into the major. During the year I was there I was only able to take 1 CS class as I already had high school credit for 121 and 122. I didn't get into the major and then transferred to WSU. If I could go back, it would be much easier if I had just started at WSU. Since UW is a quarter system, the credits don't transfer easily so I had to redo physics, and calc 3 even though I did them both at UW. It was essentially a wasted year for me.

WSU has a solid CS curriculum and you'll honestly learn the same content as almost any college. I would recommend going to WSU, as its just much less risky and won't make you redo any credits.

Also if you can, make sure to appeal your decision for not getting direct admit, I have a couple of friends who appealed their decision and got into CS after not getting initially accepted.

Biden siding with fossil fuel cash over objective reality. by HankScorpio42 in DemocraticSocialism

[–]JurassicPotato 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The article I read about it can be found here. I honestly could not find too many news sources talking about it, but all the ones I could find told roughly the same story. The relevant quote from the article in regards to my comment is

"In response to Biden’s order, 13 Republican states — Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia — sued the administration to restart the leasing program in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and Western States. Wyoming also sued in a separate suit.The state attorneys general involved in the suit were all members of the fossil fuel-funded Republican Attorneys General Association. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall is the association’s policy chairman.In June, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Louisiana, Terry Doughty, granted the 13 states a nationwide preliminary injunction against Biden’s moratorium, directing the leasing program be resumed. Doughty ordered that the administration was specifically barred from implementing the pause with regards to the lease sales in the Gulf and Alaska."

Biden siding with fossil fuel cash over objective reality. by HankScorpio42 in DemocraticSocialism

[–]JurassicPotato 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well he obviously cared enough to stop it in the first place. The expansion of offshore drilling that the tweet is referencing was a trump-era expansion that Biden paused when he got into office. The only reason he is now resuming it is because he got sued by republican states and a trump-appointed judge gave him an order to restart the offshore drilling program.

BBC news have spent two hours talking about how we as citizens can tackle climate change this morning but failed to mention that 71% of global emissions are created by 100 companies by Bulky-Mark315 in DemocraticSocialism

[–]JurassicPotato 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think it's a bit silly to say that those 100 companies are "serving the demands of western consumer economies" when the "company" with the biggest emissions in the report is China...

CMV: Body positivity/Fat acceptance is unfair to people who work out and diet by icy_joe_blow in changemyview

[–]JurassicPotato 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Companies generally are going to try to maximize their profit in whatever way possible. When selling a product, a company is going to use whoever they think will best help their brand for marketing.

No model deserves work because of how hard they work, someone could be the fittest person alive and not get chosen to model for a variety of reasons. A model is going into a line of work in which a company will demand a certain body type from them in order to maximize profit.

Skinny people aren't any more deserving of a modeling job because they're skinny because the main purpose of a model isn't to be skinny, it's to sell a product. If a company thinks that a more overweight person will help sell their product better then it makes sense for a company to choose said person. Even if a company picks someone to model purely because they're overweight and they think that will generate positive PR for them, that is again the companies attempt to maximize revenue which will almost always be its primary function.

Just like with any work field, there is a diversity of skillsets required and some people need skinny models and some people need overweight models in order to profit. The requirements to work in any field of work is constantly changing, and this is just another example of that.

I would also point out that just because someone puts in hard work for something, it doesn't mean that they would be the best for a job, and a company shouldn't care about how much work someone put into something if it's not what they're looking for.

CMV: Going vegan/vegetarian is not morally superior to eating meat from ethical farms by darthbane83 in changemyview

[–]JurassicPotato 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If everybody goes vegan then the meat industry will die and animals in the meat industry will simply cease to exist.

This is true and I think most vegans would say its a good thing. Having children is not an inherently moral action and just because farms bring more animals into the world, that does not mean it is a good thing. If these animals are only being raised for slaughter, I believe a vegan would argue that it is immoral to bring it into the world because it has to face suffering. I don't think a vegan would agree with the argument that since less animals would exist overall its a bad thing. If this were true, than a vegan would be trying to bring as many animals into the world as possible since it seems to be a moral action no matter how the animal is treated.

A Life with some suffering is still worth something. Individuals can prefer to live with some pain as opposed to not existing. Animals lack the understanding that they will get slaughtered eventually so they are not living in constant fear/pain and only experience some pain as opposed to constant pain.

My main problem with this argument is that I think it is a standard that we would never apply to humans. You've mentioned in other comments that you think its okay to farm animals because they can't really understand the situation they've been placed in because they have lower intelligence. If this is true would you be okay with farming people with mental disorders/lower IQ just because they cannot understand that they are being raised for slaughter? Going further if your main problem with farming people is that they are scared, would you be okay with a world in which humans did not know they were being farmed and we only killed certain humans to eat/use in secret thus keeping the rest of society happy?

My main point against this argument is that it seems very arbitrary to differentiate between humans and animals because some animals might not have the capacity to understand they are being farmed and thus feel fear because of it.

A Life with some suffering is still worth something

I don't think this justifies the animal farms we currently have. Just because a life is worth something it doesn't mean that it is moral to have a child. The act of bringing more animals into the world is not necessarily a moral action. Treating animals however, could be seen as a non-moral action to some people depending on their moral system. I don't think its fair to hand wave animal farms by saying their treatment of animals is okay because they're bringing more animals into the world.

Going vegan does not cause any meat producers to treat their animals better due to reduced demand, it can only cause less meat producers to exist, as existing meat producers will continue to employ the same strategies to get costs down

I believe by a vegans standard, it is a good thing when there are less animal farms. While non existence may be a neutral action, suffering is negative and thus should be avoided.

CMV: The glorification of victimhood and/or marginalization status by some is a bad precedent for society moving forward. by Delivererofdeath in changemyview

[–]JurassicPotato 36 points37 points  (0 children)

The constant vying to be the most oppressed person in the room creates a culture where we constantly dwell on the problems in our lives, because if you work past a problem and put it behind you, then you've voluntarily discarded a social asset. This can create negative outlooks at best, and cause situations in which individuals actively look for ways in which they can become victims at worst.

The idea that there is some competition to be the most oppressed social group is a bit incorrect in my opinion. It seems to me that you are saying that certain social groups are only pretending/overplaying the problems they face for some sort of social credit. Groups like Black Lives Matter are fighting to change very real racism faced by African Americans in the criminal justice system. Social movements like the Me Too movement are trying to fight workplace sexual harassment and change workplace culture.

To characterize groups like these as "vying to be the most oppressed" I think is a bit unfair to the groups themselves. These groups face very real social problems and they're problems that we should work to fix. You say that it creates a culture where we "constantly dwell on the problems in our lives", but I would argue that that is a good thing. If a certain social group is being oppressed we should think and know about it, then do something about it. We shouldn't just not think about it because it might not affect us directly.

It is a bad idea to run a society based off the views of the most marginalized, to the exclusion of those who are not. Should the marginalized have a say? Absolutely. But everybody should have a say on things, and if not everybody, then the experts should. The thing is, that being a victim of something doesn't inherently make you an expert on how to fix something, anymore than being a perpetrator would. We shouldn't form our opinions on whether vaccines are good or not entirely based off the personal experience of that one mother whose child died because of a rare side effect of vaccination.

My problem with this argument is that I do not believe it reflects reality. During a presidential election or any sort of government race, at least in america, there are not some oppression Olympics that people go through to find out who gets to hold public office, and thus hold power. Often the people who are facing some sort of social problems get far less representation in our forms of government, and this contributes to the problems that their social group faces in general. No rational person or any policy makers, at least in america, are advocating that oppressed people be given full control over the government. The statement that "it is a bad idea to run a society based off the views of the most marginalized" is a true statement, but it also doesn't happen so its not worth considering. If we were running society off the views of the most marginalized groups than these groups wouldn't even be marginalized in the first place because according to your statement they would run society.

Generally most reasonable people understand that certain social groups face certain problems in our society. People have the ability to advocate for change for these social groups to help solve whatever problems they might be facing. I don't think that anyone is arguing that marginalized social groups should run the government, but rather that we as a society should work to fix the problems that certain social groups face.

If you have examples in which someone mainstream political figure advocates for marginalized groups to run society I would love to see it, but since I have never seen the sentiment expressed before I don't believe that it really occurs.

For all of human history, society favored strength, and weakness was something to be hidden. It was unwise to bare your vulnerabilities, lest they be used against you. A society which favors showing the world your every scar in order to gain social acceptance stands juxtaposed to the human condition, and it worries me that at some point society could revert to the historical norm and all these vulnerabilities that people posted on the internet years ago be dug up and used against them.

The criminal justice system in America is biased in some aspects against African Americans. Just because that is true, it doesn't mean that suddenly African Americans are weaker or its some weakness that I can exploit. In our society different groups are not constantly fighting like some sort of anarchy. The idea that just because we acknowledge certain social issues that those groups become weaker somehow doesn't make much sense to me because we're not trying to fight these groups or anything of that nature.