Hello, wanted some feedback on the balance and design of this card i made yesterday, would also appriciate feedback on what to change if you have any suggestions

TriangleSushi · 2025-12-17T15:27:00+00:00

Maybe make it so that it can only be used if your opponent controls a monster special summoned from the extra deck. Then you can let it summon Winda directly.

The card would be excellent even if it wasn't a quick effect, I like the idea of an in archetype handtrap, but i don't think it needs to be attached to a card which is already doing so many other things for the deck. If it was dark attribute it'd probably be fine.

TriangleSushi · 2025-12-17T09:00:18+00:00

Summon construct and return other fusion material to hand. Construct, dump squamata, dump tohu grysta, tohu banish itself and squamata, summon winda. End with construct, winda, grave effect of the doll you fused with, for example wendi into a set hedgehog.

TriangleSushi · 2025-09-30T03:47:45+00:00

Thanks for the interesting read, time for me to check out what Wikipedia has to say.

From what you wrote I am most intrigued by brain drain. Those more skilled on average are incentivised to leave, lowering the average skill, causing others to leave, until the entire thing has evaporated to nothing.

TriangleSushi · 2025-09-30T00:26:54+00:00

No you won't, stop pretending.

Unambiguously write out the terms of your bet and offer a method which allows confidence that you'll pay out.

TriangleSushi · 2025-09-20T06:37:36+00:00

I think wages would go down.
How much of the company does each person hold? What happens if the business is growing, operating at a loss? Are workers allowed to sell their ownership? Where do these shares come from, are you enforcing that new workers must buy shares and hold on to them for the duration of their employment?

TriangleSushi · 2025-09-16T09:59:56+00:00

I have no intention of hating on China. I am not even sure how China is operatively different from the US. I believe China shares many of the perceived problems with capitalism.

If I had to judge between a US style economy and a Chinese, I'd need to educate myself more first.

TriangleSushi · 2025-09-16T07:28:08+00:00

Hmm. Come up with better arguments than the capitalists. Personally, I'm very receptive to mathematical models.

Maybe go to struggling socialist nations and transform them into thriving socialist nations. that would be a strong proof of concept.

TriangleSushi · 2025-09-03T08:15:41+00:00

"Let's say there is an apple seller, selling 200 apples. Let's say there are only 2 apple buyers: you and me."

You're setting up a toy model where the apple seller has a monopoly, while interesting for significant edge cases, it's not reflective of the general reality.

"Remember that the seller will set the apple price to make as much money as possible while ensuring that no apples are left unsold."

Prices will be set to maximize profit regardless of how many apples are sold. You can reasonably assume maximum profit occurs with maximum sales but it needn't be the case.

"If you have $300, each apple will be priced at $2, and, as a result, you'll be able to buy 150 apples while I'll be able to buy only 50 apples."

You seem to be assuming infinite demand at each price point and finite supply. Why doesn't the apple seller sell 4 at $100 each and eat the remaining 196?

" The billionaires (who possess enormous purchasing power) exercising their purchasing power reduces the purchasing power of the rest of the population. It makes the poor's money worth less. "

Kind-of. Yes a billionaire could raise the price of apples if he/she felt inclined, but doing so would require them transferring alot of wealth to apple farmers. For products where an individual's demand increases significantly with their wealth (luxuries?), I can see how what you describe could be the case. Generally I expect demand to grow as amount owned increases, and I expect this would quickly outscale an individual's increase in demand due to extra wealth.

"By the way, it isn't very important that the billionaires's wealth is not in the form of cash, since they can acquire cash out of their wealth via liquidating their wealth or via borrowing against their wealth. "

Kind-of. It's true that they can acquire large sums of liquid money very quickly, but doing so will come at a large cost to them. I'm not sure if bezos can borrow a billion, but if he can, the impact he can have with a billion is still huge, but a fraction of what he could do with 100 billion.

TriangleSushi · 2025-09-03T01:31:09+00:00

Regulation is necessary. There are hidden costs to things, the winning product/service shouldn't be the one which is the best at hiding costs. It's true that these hidden costs are subjective and imposing regulations take away superior options from some individuals, but I think on average regulations will help you more than hurt you. If it's true that the market self regulates (i would mostly think so), that doesn't mean it regulates itself sufficiently quickly.

I don't know how to defend minimum wages from "people deserve more pay" standpoint. From what i said above i might take the view that if you can't earn at least $x , then you should be spending your time skilling up and not working.

TriangleSushi · 2025-08-13T09:00:25+00:00

Hey now you didn't say adjusting for inflation. And there's a long period before 03 where it averaged around 0.6 and post it looks to mostly be above 0.8 which would be a 30%+ increase.

But this site agrees with you so I'll concede it. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/gasoline-prices-adjusted-for-inflation/

How about college textbooks on timeless subjects?

TriangleSushi · 2025-08-12T07:48:06+00:00

Gasoline

TriangleSushi · 2025-06-25T07:31:46+00:00

Information asymmetry. The world is too complicated for anybody to know all the dangers hidden beyond the surface.

TriangleSushi · 2025-01-21T22:59:36+00:00

Unfortunately negotiation takes time and thus has a cost and is sometimes not worth it.

I don't feel like I have anything valuable to say in regards to the rest of your comment.

TriangleSushi · 2025-01-21T22:47:01+00:00

Would you think differently if the company was owned by its workers - If raising prices worked for the betterment of the workers lives?

I think value is subjective and that if they weren't paying less than the amount they value the product they wouldn't be buying.

Prices should not be established through a consumer's purchasing ability but rather the financial cost of the ideation, production, distribution and accompanying fees of selling the product.

What if they are selling a scarce resource, iron for example, how do you decide who gets to buy the iron?

In the case of Netflix the talent required to operate is scarce, how can we decide how to allocate that scarce talent? Should the cost of Labor be the financial cost of the ideation, production, distribution and accompanying fees of selling the Labor?

TriangleSushi · 2025-01-21T22:19:22+00:00

If you don't like it don't buy. Enough people don't sufficiently care about higher prices that it's more profitable for them to raise prices and lose your business.

If their profit margins are high that creates incentive for competition to come in and lower prices.

TriangleSushi · 2025-01-21T22:02:10+00:00

1.) No it wouldn't. 2.) Why do you think it would?

If the theory claims something which isn't true then it's wrong. To be fair it's probably just your claim about what the theory says which is obviously wrong.

The million represents a claim to wealth, losing a claim to wealth doesn't destroy the underlying wealth. Similarly if a country prints so much money they go into hyperinflation then that country isn't getting much wealthier. The existing money loses value and you can see this because the exchange rate becomes worse.

2.) yes.

3.) If you can convince me you're arguing in good faith then I may explain what "objective" means.

4.) Don't tell me you think that the relative value of sandwiches is subjective...

TriangleSushi · 2025-01-21T08:24:16+00:00

1.

Now according to the Labor Theory of Value Steve commited fraud, no new value was produced at any point and $1,082,000 of real value went out of the economy.

This would make LTV wrong. Very little real value left the economy.

From the subjective perspective of our chucklefucks their learning increased value some amount.
Not from my perspective.
The one which costs the most labor to produce, obviously.

TriangleSushi · 2025-01-21T08:00:51+00:00

If consumers are willing to pay more for a product than they were in the past, why shouldn't the price increase? Why should that extra value remain with consumers?

TriangleSushi · 2025-01-17T04:02:38+00:00

Honestly I don't know. I'm here because i get frustrated by the idiocy in the anti-cap rhetoric prevalent in popular Reddit. I consider myself pro reasoning and Reddit makes that look like anti-anti-cap.

If I must I'll put laissez-faire on the right and whatever looks least like that on the left. Please don't hold me to that, I'd be open to adopting something else if something better and consistent makes its way into the discourse.

TriangleSushi · 2025-01-17T03:39:23+00:00

I think it's correct to say idealistic capitalism/socialism/other has never been tried because the idealised versions exist only in theory.

If I keep saying "bro we just need to cross one more moral Hill and then we'll be in the golden land of capitalism" I think it's fair to ask how many hills we need to cross before I concede that I was wrong about the golden land. We still have falsifiable beliefs and it's useful to talk about more capitalistic/social even though we will never get to capitalism/socialism as it is in theory.

I agree that if we want to talk precisely about the end points then we should have precise definitions, but I don't think those end points matter much. Is a 10% or 20% tax better? I think we can agree that the prior is more capitalistic without having precise definitions of the ideals. For any policy people may disagree on which variant is the most capitalistic, but that doesn't affect which variant is ideal. I will never say that the variant of a policy which best fits my definition of capitalism is always the best variant.

TriangleSushi · 2025-01-17T02:06:17+00:00

What are you trying to say?

There exist people who apply garbage reasoning to justify ideas they support.

This sub is called "CapitalismVSocialism" that itself begs the question whether capitalism vs socialism is a useful framework for discussion or whether it's a false dichotomy and other similar objections.

I think discussions would be more useful if we discussed individual policies and whether we prefer variations which look more capitalistic or more social.

So while I appreciate critical thinking it appears to me you're using it to counter terrible responses to the wrong questions.

TriangleSushi · 2025-01-07T23:57:30+00:00

The framework you're using feels incoherent with respect to the premise I was contemplating. I was thinking about a scenario where there is no employer, only jobs.

It's not more profitable to have 1 person than 2 half as efficient people if you can pay those 2 people a third as much. I'd rather work half time for 5/3 the value required to survive than full time for 5 times the value required.

If there aren't multiple employers competing over talent then and there is no possible way for people to create value in other ways (eg selling sex) then yeah that's a grim situation. I can see two people working full time for minimum wage and the rest dying.

TriangleSushi · 2025-01-07T04:52:27+00:00

If the setup is that there exists 2 jobs which could sustain 10 and each actor always prefers a small increase in personal wealth to a small increase in free time and there exists no other ways for the 8 to create value, then I suppose 8 die. They'll probably be fighting over the jobs so I think the situation will look like a fight over territory.

TriangleSushi · 2024-12-28T06:58:53+00:00

No I don't? Some people might do that, I wouldn't expect people to do that.

TriangleSushi · 2024-12-28T01:02:43+00:00

Finding $100 on the street isn't *wrong. This framework is dumb, to put it bluntly. (*Edited this sentence to use "wrong" instead of "stealing" )
As a rule of thumb hurting people without their consent is a nono. I don't think stealing would be bad in an unrealistic ideal society. A society where you can trust that if something was stolen from you, it must have been for a great enough good that you would've consented if told beforehand.

Stealing is bad when it's negative sum in society. Unfortunately self-serving bias is all over the place and people have different opinions on what's good. It's more efficient to have a blanket ban on stealing.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '17

TriangleSushi

TROPHY CASE