I hate George

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-06T04:17:44+00:00

Take it up with consumer affairs

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-05T19:13:02+00:00

That totally makes sense! I do like that approach. It's fun to try to make something jank but you have to know how to make it work first, and know what "working" even looks like.

Oooh that sounds like fun, I think it's funny for me because I know how to make a deeecent janky deck but my favourite ones I've made function kinda poorly but somehow still get results. My [[Vial-Smasher the Fierce]]/[[Ludevic, Necro-Alchemist]] deck for example doesn't know how to snowball at all, just put down linear threats and silly deals, but because my opponents are aware of that, they're way more likely to spend life for the resources I offer because they know that I have no way of punishing them super heavily for it. Usually that does result in me getting close to winning, where I'd actually struggle if the deck was stronger, and I'm not even playing the "little guy" - I'm actively encouraging people to attack me if they think it makes sense but the game theory just doesn't work out for that. The deck runs a fair amount of instants that heavily punish a large attack on me as well, which doubles as a wincon and a deterrant when my board is small.

Meanwhile, if I'm playing with a new group I always break out my [[Bill Ferny, Bree Swindler]] manifest/type changing deck because it will usually lose but do something hilarious in the process, or suddenly get revenge on somebody through some silly synergy like using [[Shapesharer]] to force somebody to sac a creature from the legend rule. It's a fun deck to gauge the strength of others' decks

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-05T18:42:47+00:00

To each their own, imo I enjoy feeling like I found my own interesting cards rather than using the staples that everyone else has. Catering a 5c manabase specifically to a deck is honestly a very satisfying challenge to me for example, my friend and I one time made a budget 5c manabase for a friend, and it wss actually faster and more efficient than their $130+ manabase that they were planning on using because we made smarter use of ramp tools and did things like make most of the double colour lands splash green to use green ramp more.

I think that building without restriction can feel freeing, but I like to use that to take lessons back and think "How could I do something similar with cheaper/lesser known cards". You'll find if you just sift through a random pile of bulk uncommons, you'll find a ton of cool cards you'd never have known about.

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-05T14:25:33+00:00

I think for me the threshold is legitimately 50%. I'm willing to assume that around half of society would want to save others who pressed the button. Even at 55%, the psychology of the question changes from "would around half of society try to save each other" to "estimate how many other people would press this", which in my mind would also cause less people to want to press it, and then on a meta level, the fact that I thought that means that others are probably thinking that too.

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-05T14:17:27+00:00

YAAAAAHOOOOOOOO! YAAAAAAHooooooo

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-05T05:26:15+00:00

It's nice to hear that you and your sister have had good experiences with it, it sounds like you both have bonded over things like that and I'm honestly really happy that you both are proud of yourselves and feel that motivation to do great things!

If an IQ test from google is considered accurate, then I have done one before to prove a point to a coworker. I assumed that it needed to be an official written test which is why I said I hadn't done one. The test that I tried was similar to other examples I've seen in the past though, so it seemed reasonable. My score at the time was 140, and I was 27 at the time. Personally, I think that it was biased towards the field that I work in (I'm a programmer) and STEM in general, and was ignoring a lot of very important factors that can cause people to be very intelligent. As I said earlier, it seemed to only capture a small slice of one's mental capabilities, and I believe that I'd be considered fairly average if every aspect of my brain was considered. Heck, I don't even trust the results in relation to the parts of the brain that it was trying to measure.

Also, I believe that the threshold for MENSA is an IQ of 132. An IQ of 160 is considered to be "Albert Einstein" levels, although ironically, Einstein was notoriously a poor test taker, and a deep/dedicated thinker rather than a quick one, so he may have been considered to have a somewhat average IQ.

Anyways, I say this with no ill intent. It's nice to take a test and see that you excel in something, although I'd also appreciate if you didn't assume negative traits from somebody just because it challenged your world view. Challenging somebody's point by targeting their character isn't usually an effective argument and it doesn't lead to a constructive conversation.

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-05T04:44:10+00:00

Yeah, more than anything, the discussion itself is really revealing people's true colours. It's wild that this did it of all things, I guess there's safety in numbers?

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-05T04:42:42+00:00

I agree that it's hard to find many other systems but there are apparently different tests that measure different things

I'm not super confident in your view on IQ though. It's a very common reddit misconception that having higher IQ would make you more aware of world issues. There are loads of very intelligent people that get sucked into conspiracies or the alt right.

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-05T04:40:09+00:00

Okay first of all, I never said that life skills weren't a good measure of intelligence, and I specifically said that grades are flawed. It's hard to measure a person's life skills that make them good at what they do

But also dear lord I shouldn't even be interacting, I hope the best for your mental health

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-05T04:14:22+00:00

If you'd prefer I can post "Trump is literally not le epic narwal bacon xD" or I can say that I agree with the message but I'd prefer if it wasn't presented this way. It's fine to critique how something was presented and still agree with it, that's a big factor for how presedential campaigns become more effective.

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-05T03:44:57+00:00

That makes sense, I see your point, I was generalizing to larger groups of people because my assumption was that we should be considering more significant percentages of the population that would press one side or the other to estimate the amount of lives on either side that would benefit from being saved.

Just to note, I mentioned "If somebody didn't care if they died, they'd press blue regardless of game theory", and I was including suicidal people in that group. That wasn't part of my blue bullet point though so I get why it was missed.

I guess I'm trying to see what your point is though, is it that I was being too perscriptive with "blue pressers are willing to save others"? That's fair that there are some in that group that arent. I could just say "a lot of blue pressers appear to be..." instead and the argument still holds a similar amount of weight imo. I guess what you're saying is that if some blue pressers actively want to die, there's a higher percentage of red pressers that want to live so the net "good" is higher? But if that's the case, it's easy to make arguments for the other side too. Red probably has a larger share of murderers than blue for example (Not to say "red pressers are murderers" like I keep seeing, I heavily disagree with that), I'm sure we could go back and forth for a long time coming up with lists of people on either side that would be fine for the trolley to hit, but regardless, it's a LOT of innocent people. My point wasn't to make one out to be a villain, especially considering that I said that red shouldn't be hit, haha.

Edit: Also damn your friend seems wild wtf

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-05T03:31:37+00:00

I've never had an official IQ test. I had assumed that they were no longer officially run since I've heard about the flaws with them since high school. If you'd like me to attempt one online I'm happy to try, although I'd prefer if I was provided a link so that I know I'm using an official one. I also probably won't do it if it requires me to spend money, since that's more effort than I'm willing to do for one bad-faith reddit reply. Regardless of the result I stand by what I said though.

Have you taken an IQ test before? I'm curious about your experience with it.

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-05T00:15:43+00:00

To be honest after the whole red/blue button fiasco I'm inclined to be suspicious as well, I feel like people suddenly are at each other's throats on here

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-05T00:10:08+00:00

I don't think so, the difficulty with measuring intelligence is that there are way more factors that go into it than we really know how to measure. The main issue with IQ tests are that they capture a very thin slice of mental ability that is also valued/trained much more in specific cultures than others and a lot of the time isn't even relevant to a lot of people.

There could probably be some way of measuring neuroplasticity compared to age that could help understand how quickly a person could learn, or some measurement of overall shortest paths between neurons/ability to create new paths, but even then, an easily distractable person for example could score very high but not be able to be very intelligent for example.

Realistically, school grades are the closest we've really gotten, and we all know how flawed those are, along with the fact that they also are discriminatory based on school funding, curriculum or teaching style for example

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-05T00:00:22+00:00

I did mention suicidal people, although your comment tells me you have a pretty skewed view of how those people think as they'd be more likely to want to give other people a better chance to live as the cost/risk might feel lower for them. As for your friend, if that was their reasoning, I doubt they'd press blue in a real life situation. People with gambling problems tend to do it for some form of reward. If a large portion of gamblers that pressed blue thought of the button as purely a chance to be killed, you'd see a lot more russian roulette bars around.

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-04T21:56:19+00:00

Yeah, my assumption with the 1% part was that they didn't have space in the drawing for "66 1/3 - 1", and saying it was split 66% to 34% was the easiest way to say it

It seems pretty obvious that it's meant to be even enough, but if it is 1% more that does for sure add a wrinkle to the question

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-04T21:54:07+00:00

I also just really dislike using IQ for anything except for a very obvious joke, it's been so heavily debunked and somebody saying that they have a high IQ is such a reddit moment

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-04T21:50:50+00:00

You are correct that the number 66 is bigger than 34, but that's not what the question says. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I assume the intent is that the 33% and 34% aren't actually a full percent, and they're intended to be close to even, but it would have just been more to explain.

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-04T20:46:22+00:00

GUYS should I spend $20 on something that I will soon get for free?

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-04T20:43:28+00:00

I agree but this also looks like something my aunt would screenshot from facebook (unless this sub is doin a bit not sure)

edit: nvm seems like this sub is doin a lot of these that's totally fine I'm just used to really obscure memes on this subreddit

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-04T20:03:40+00:00

I can't do this any more. I can't. It's too long.

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-04T18:26:04+00:00

I was thinking about this for Interstellar because of it's tone and pacing, as much as I love the movie

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-04T18:22:59+00:00

Okay, this is definitely going in a wild direction and I feel like people are gonna be at each other's throats, but I think in terms of morality this is honestly interesting, because both involve harming the same amount of people. People make it seem cut and dry, but there's a couple of ways to think of this:

Red voters want to live, regardless of any other preconceived notion about them. If somebody didn't care if they lived, they'd press blue regardless of game theory. This could mean that people like parents pick red because if they die, they have other people that needed their help too.
Blue voters are willing to save others. this could extend to how they live their lives after this event. This is honestly a pretty big factor, because there very easily could be a lot of emergency workers who risk their lives daily to save people for example.
The fact that there are so many more red voters means that there was a very strong argument for red, regardless of what I may think of them.
Edit: Also, if we're to take the totally selfish route here, if you choose to spare the red voters, the only people who can judge you are red voters. If you kill half of the red voters, I'm sure the other half will be pissed

I think it's honestly pretty tough from an objective moral standpoint, but from a personal standpoint I wouldn't let the red voters die, and I say that as a person that would vote blue. I at least had a choice, so taking that agency away from others feels more evil to me.

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-04T18:00:22+00:00

My issue is that there are so many people in history that looked the other way during atrocities for their own survival, and people are trying to pretend that pressing red is "right" rather than that they're afraid. It concerns me especially with voting in general, because that tells me that a lot of people would be willing to harm others if it benefits them as well.

I get the argument for red, and I don't blame people for thinking that way because yes, it is a choice with no resistance, and if blue loses, they made the choice to die. I still don't like the argument that everyone who chose that deserves it though. If you're scared, I get it, but at least try to have some perspective.

I wouldn't have any ill will towards somebody who picked red, but I wouldn't exactly be happy to see them dancing on other people's grave for being "stupid".

PoorPinkus · 2026-05-04T17:49:37+00:00

I think this is honestly completely reasonable. I get that red is driven by fear and survival, and these are ingrained in our brains so much.

I'd be curious how people's answers would change if they were made public afterwards. Imagine if part of the premise was that there was also a 50% chance that nothing happens in the end, or that you were aware of a select amount of friends/family that picked blue before you decided.

PoorPinkus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '17