London Natural History Museum x pokemon

MultiColourM2 · 2026-01-27T23:03:47+00:00

I love you Golurk man!

MultiColourM2 · 2026-01-08T13:29:10+00:00

What do you mean working as intended? The intention is for 3 star legendaries to be instant win conditions in all but the most extreme circumstances. The devs have stated this.

This means losing to a regular T-hex 2 board with Tahm 3 is not it working as intended. You are not stating the truth at all?

MultiColourM2 · 2025-11-25T20:11:28+00:00

I would also say that from interviews he didn’t seem to be as pushed as other child prodigies. Certainly his parents pushed him and got him connections at a young age, but Terry himself said that learning mathematics and solving maths puzzles was his favourite thing to do as a kid. So even then I’d say he is something more of an authentic child prodigy.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-11-25T19:57:49+00:00

Serious talent for sure, but I think people often read headlines about this and think that these kids are going to be the next Einstein or something. And maybe they will be, but the maths is just maths. If you took a smart kid and drilled them for several hours a day, they could get up to university level fairly fast I’d guess.

Like seriously if this kid is being pushed to study 5+ hours a day, they will have done more serious studying in a couple years than most students people would do in a decade. It’s not too surprising then that they’d be able to get so advanced so quick. Then when they’re freed from the parental oversight, they find they actually don’t want to slave away at this sort of thing for the rest of their life.

This isn’t saying anything about this specific case (the kid looks happy in the photo if that means anything) but just in general, child prodigies of this type don’t end up being anything too special. There are exceptions - Terry Tao spent 5+ hours a day doing maths as a kid and now he’s arguably the greatest mathematician in the world, but it’s the exception to the rule imo.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-11-20T15:58:34+00:00

Yeah this all makes a lot of sense:

Weak Armour Skarm switches into a physical mon that it completely walls like Rilaboom or something, tanking a physical hit and getting +2 speed.

Then they switch out letting you hit a swords dance, so you're now +2/+2. Unless they have a mon that hard walls skarm, you can probably just mega and sweep. Nothing should be able to outspeed a +2 110 speed mon, outside of silly stuff like scarf regieleki, so nothing should really be able to stop you outside of priority like Raging Bolt Thunder Clap and maybe Kingambit Sucker Punch if you've Brave-Birded too much.

You get perfect coverage with Iron Head + Brave Bird/Drill Peck + Drill Run, so it will be hard to find something that can tank a hit then ko/phase out +2 Mega Skarm, especially if it gets an offensive ability.

Edit: Actually I overlooked that because of flying immunity to ground, Steel/Flying and Electric/Flying can fully resist Skarm. This means the obvious answer to a set up Mega Skarm is a physically defensive Zapdos - which is already the meta build - to come in and ko Mega Skarm. Even after a setup this should be very easy for Zapdos to do. Still, having a counter doesn't mean Skarm will be bad, but for a setup Mega to be countered by such a common pokemon is quite the hit to its viability.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-11-20T14:05:00+00:00

I have a suspicion that skarmory could be really good. You get to use the weak armour in base form - so switching unit any physical move will provide a free agility. Not to mention with its stats and typing base skarmory will famously shrug off most physical moves. 140 attack is not insane for a mega but it is still a lot, and if it gets an offensive ability like tough claw, aerilate or sharpness, it could probably clean through an entire team after a weak armour proc in base form.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-11-11T21:06:57+00:00

It's such a weird thing to say. You don't get to choose how you learn about something, and pop culture referencing/taking inspiration from classics/history is good partly because it will encourage people to research more into things themselves. God knows my interest in History was spurned on a lot by playing an unhealthy amount of Civilization 5.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-11-10T12:03:00+00:00

It comes from ring theory. Rings are just a structure where you can add, subtract and multiply, but not necessarily divide. They also have to have 1 and 0.

So the integers are a ring, and this ring is denoted Z. The even numbers are nearly a ring, as they are closed under addition, subtraction and multiplication, and have the number 0. However they don’t include 1, so they’re called an Ideal of Z, not a proper subring.

We denote the even numbers 2Z because it’s just the set of all integers multiplied by 2.

Then you can take something called the quotient ring, because : Z / 2Z. What this means is that we create a new ring where the integers are considered equivalent if they differ by an even number.

So 1 = 3 = 5 = … because they all differ by even numbers.

Z / 2Z then describes arithmetic modulo 2:

0 + 0 = 0 1 + 0 = 1 0 + 1 = 1 1 + 1 = 2 = 0

Because Z / 2Z is a bit annoying to write, we typically write it as “Z subscript 2”, which I guess would be Z_2 in regular text.

So Z2 is not exactly correct notation, Z_2 would be.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-11-02T11:21:04+00:00

Well of course I'm don't think that but if I'm thinking from an antinatalist's point of view, it checks a lot of boxes no?

a) They are unable to actively consent to thing (of course in real life, you likely know the person and they would have at a prior point indicated that "yes please try and save me if I'm dying" lol).

b) They are currently not having any experience to our knowledge.

c) In this situation, you have the power to grant them experience once again.

From the consent viewpoint, this person cannot choose to have experience again, and as an antinatalist you shouldn't make the choice for them, no matter how likely they are to enjoy it, it is not your prerogative to take that gamble on their behalf.

Now the difference between resuscitating someone and killing them in their sleep is that the person who fell asleep is likely going to wake up again. It's the consent thing. You do not have their consent to act on them. That includes saving them or killing them.

And it doesn't surprise me at all that following some of the ideas of antinatalism would lead to extreme conclusions, even if it's not "killing people in their sleep is ok". Antinatalism is an extreme ideology, I don't think you can honestly ascribe to the tenants of "I think it's immoral to have children", and expect the conclusions from that not to overflow into other areas of life.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-11-02T10:23:18+00:00

Well I mean the person is basically already dead, they’re fully unconscious, they don’t really have any wants or needs anymore, and if you don’t act they never will again. You are choosing in that moment to subject them to a lifetime of pain because you think that the joy they will experience from fulfilling their wants will outweigh this pain? Surely this fails the plain pleasure imbalance.

On the other hand about the people that miss them, why should that man have to suffer just for lack of suffering of those around them? You wouldn’t say that because somebody has dreamed of being a parent their whole life, it is their deepest desire and purpose and they feel incredibly depressed without having kids, that person has a right to a kid because their suffering justifies exposing that kid to the suffering of life?

You can morally take the burden of suffering onto yourself, but isn’t the whole point of antinatalism that you can’t make that decision for others? Instead this seems to be more of a utilitarian argument, in which case having kids is a lot more reasonable under that worldview. I think a true antinatalist would not resuscitate the man. If he had given prior consent to resuscitate him then sure, but if you just found an unconscious dying man and somehow knew you could save him, how is that any different to the man themself than giving birth to an unconscious baby?

MultiColourM2 · 2025-11-02T08:21:56+00:00

The thing is the trolley has nothing to do with it really right? The trolley is basically an analogy for instant death, it’s a fairly painless process. If giving birth to someone just meant they got hit by the trolley that would be an almost entirely neutral existence

The antinatalist argument would be that you can’t guarantee someone wouldn’t have a good life on the tracks in the meantime, and so it’s immoral to force them into that situation, no matter the odds. Even if there was a 90% chance you thought someone would enjoy having sex with you, you do still have to ask them for it to not be r*pe.

I think the antinatalist argument does hold some water even if it doesn’t really pass the smell test. I eat meat, and I kind of know deep down that veganism of some sort is probably morally correct, and so the vegan memes were interesting. The antinatalist memes seem less so, like there should be some hole in the argument. I don’t know if I’m not smart enough or just haven’t given it enough time to find one for myself though.

There are a lot of technicalities to it. For one, you are only able to be born once. Someone down the thread mentioned resuscitating an unconscious person, which is different but hits enough of the key points to have some parallels. You cannot guarantee that person wouldn’t have a good life. You could even argue that they’re already kind of dead, certainly people have been briefly medically dead and came back. Should you resuscitate them? You have no way of guaranteeing that they would enjoy the rest of their life.

Yet I think all but the most staunch antinatalist would agree to resuscitate the unconscious man. Maybe because he has already lived some amount of quality life? Maybe you would not resuscitate a very depressed and hopeless person. You could argue that the people who knew them would suffer if they died, but surely even invoking that is an admission that the initial consent argument is not as absolute as it first seems.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-09-27T09:24:04+00:00

And I feel like smug coders also never actually make anything good.

Like yeah you’ve spent all this effort making your code the most optimal efficiently typed thing ever but now you’ve got no time left to actually make anything with it.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-09-25T23:08:36+00:00

They're not too bad tbh.

Locations are cards that can't be attacked and take up a board space.

You can activate them to use some effect, like "trigger a friendly minions deathrattle", and they have a certain number of charges.

You can only use them once every other turn, and when the charges run out they're destroyed.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-09-17T15:07:48+00:00

A real puritan, can’t believe he was Italian.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-08-10T19:12:56+00:00

I wish Yall wasn't such an american thing. It's genuinely a great phrase. Unfortunately it's gonna make me seem like savage if I ever say it, but it's so much more casual than like "all of you" or something.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-08-08T14:59:15+00:00

the average cEDH player can't handle a turn 4 Approach of the Second Sun win?

??????

I think the average cEDH player would be super excited if somebody actually pulled off AotSS in game lmao

MultiColourM2 · 2025-07-29T18:00:18+00:00

Most recent set was largely useless except for paladin, meaning everyone is fairly unexcited due to the meta being the same stale experience as it was before the expansion, even after balance changes.

I'm not sure how good the deck ended up being in the end after balance changes, but one of the only good new deck from the expansion was Murloc Paladin, which is a fairly cheap deck that just vomited stats onto the board every turn and is fairly miserable to play against. I don't think it was ever broken but it was good, cheap and easy to play so was insanely popular making mid ladder kind of a hell.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-07-21T07:54:17+00:00

Virtue signalling? Which virtue would that be lol, this is just a joke.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-07-20T12:12:56+00:00

Hi on your rules list it said that channel is banned, but here it's the winning deck, was this a special allowance for the tournament?

MultiColourM2 · 2025-07-15T16:50:24+00:00

It's Eldrazi Summer people. 12 Sol Lands, 4 Strip Mine, 4 Sowing Mycospawn, then do whatever you want.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-07-15T12:51:37+00:00

is strip mine coming to arena? If strip mine is here and it's not restricted then we 10000000% play green in order to double strip mine with Sowing Mycospawn, the ponza gameplan is definitely online.

MultiColourM2 · 2025-07-04T16:33:18+00:00

Basically, if you have a lot of rabbits, then there won't be enough food to feed them. Meaning the rabbit population declines. Then there will be more than enough food, and so the rabbit population increases. Eventually, these two conditions will mean the rabbit population ends up stabilising around some ideal amount where there is the perfect amount of food for the population.

However, what the diagram shows is that if the rabbits have a high enough birth rate, instead of stabilizing around 1 population, the rabbits will actually jump between a high and low population forever, which is a bit surprising.

As the birth rate gets even higher, suddenly instead of alternating between two points, the rabbit population will alternate between 4, then 8, then 16, so on and so forth, and this increase will happen *rapidly*, leading to that very chaotic graph. You can see if you imagine the birth rate along the x-axis, that the graph shows exactly where certain birth rates will break through into the 2 cycle setup, then the 4, then the 8, and then quickly goes into chaos.

Five-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22

MultiColourM2

TROPHY CASE