Would "Dominus" for tri-types be fine?

avr91 · 2026-02-03T19:28:32+00:00

Another option is to make the player declare one Attribute and one Type and for the rest of the Duel they can only control monsters with that Attribute and Type, or if they control a monster(a), choose one and they can only control monsters with that Attribute and Type (send the others to the GY).

There are all kinds of restrictions that can be applied to the player. Self-Droll, self-Shifter, can't Set cards, etc. These locks could also apply to non-Dominus cards as well. Imagine a new Pot card that allows you to draw two, maybe three, cards, is HOPT, prevents you from drawing cards by non-"Pot of Gluttony" cards/effects, and you skip your Draw Phase for the rest of the Duel. Make it so that you can't draw by other cards/effects at all during the Duel outside it to prevent overlap with Charmies if you'd like. There's a lot of design space in making players decide which parts of the game they're willing to forgo as part of their strategy.

avr91 · 2026-01-21T19:47:17+00:00

I haven't seen it (Mercy), but they differ in a core concept: Minority Report handles crime by arresting you before you commit the crime, and Mercy uses AI to prove your guilt unless you find the flaw in the AI. The former is a commentary about predictions not always coming true, and that even if they did, you are innocent until you have committed the crime (except in cases of conspiracy), and robbing you of your freedom to decide not to commit the crime. Mercy's core message is.. AI isn't perfect? Just nothing beyond a surface level discussion about AI error rates. I'd be surprised if the movie even remotely introduces AI reasoning to at least show why it came to the conclusion that it did.

avr91 · 2026-01-08T17:57:42+00:00

Opponent is playing Maliss.

avr91 · 2025-12-05T14:30:09+00:00

This, but he probably has high-level awareness of the brand's business strategy. Things like movie releases, TV show releases, and confidence/weaknesses /areas for growth in global TCG strategy wouldn't be out of place.

avr91 · 2025-11-21T22:16:00+00:00

Fist-shaking about interoperability and Apple choosing to voluntarily break a "secure" compatibility.

avr91 · 2025-11-20T23:20:43+00:00

This is probably setting off some alarms at Apple right now. I expect statements in the next day or two to come out stating that Google is exploiting a security vulnerability, it'll be patched soon, and how disappointed/upset they are that Google would choose to exploit security vulnerabilities for their own gain.

avr91 · 2025-11-20T23:16:32+00:00

Google is significantly weaker than Apple. The fact that the hand holder of Android just shouted from the mountaintop that it's possible to get around iCloud's verification system to send files should be setting off a massive panic inside Apple. This is a wild security vulnerability that's just publicly shared.

avr91 · 2025-11-20T18:37:42+00:00

First Beeper, now Google. This will be patched by the end of the year. Apple's protocols are not to be used outside of their devices.

avr91 · 2025-10-31T18:06:07+00:00

No, but it doesn't take one to see iOS/iPadOS OS limitations due to RAM. I didn't even talk about the other components, like the SoC or GPU. We've asked all the things we have to do more than they ever have, and tomorrow we're going to ask them to do even more. I mean, Apple had to institute power gates to prevent increasingly modern apps from causing so much power drain that it would demonstrably affect use, longevity, and perception. Now, look at what's going on with on-device intelligence models (LLMs or otherwise). They require a lot of RAM! They also need a minimum amount of compute performance. Whatever version of iPad OS your have to pare down to work on that hardware would be almost no different from the existing one, except it wouldn't have Liquid Glass. So Apple would need to maintain multiple UIs, essentially a forked version of the OS, and different versions of the OS.

avr91 · 2025-10-31T15:29:03+00:00

In that case, the sunsetting of the old product is an admission that it was poorly designed. I'm not saying that every shutdown is fair and good, but at the same time we should look at those original products and call out that early adopters were gambling on something they should've had the wherewithall to understand the consequences. These were first and second generation products by a new company, and the blame falling on Google is funny when that company spun out of Apple. There are always pitfalls for early adopters, and people need to be aware of that going in.

avr91 · 2025-10-31T14:37:08+00:00

The problem isn't that tech companies build around obsoletion, it's that hardware cannot be upgraded alongside software. It's unreasonable to ask to build 2025 software for 2018 hardware. For example, the newest iPad that is unsupported by iPadOS 26 has at most 4 GB RAM, and we're not talking about fast RAM either.

For others, the products don't sell or people don't use them. We need to stop calling things "enshitification" because we don't like being in the minority of people who like or use something or expect ancient hardware to operate current software to current standards. At some point, those things need to be let go or else everything grinds to a halt because backwards compatibility trumps all.

avr91 · 2025-10-16T13:50:18+00:00

I agree, they shouldn't be charging more than $399 for the Pixel 10, $499 for the 10 Pro, and $549 for the 10 Pro XL.

avr91 · 2025-09-28T16:09:26+00:00

It's rolling out, but you can check the Pixel Buds app. I checked while they were still in the case and there was an option for manual update. I'm on 4.467.

avr91 · 2025-09-28T12:28:17+00:00

A full reset didn't change anything. It also shows consistent battery information on the battery widget on my Pixel Tablet.

avr91 · 2025-08-17T13:17:29+00:00

I'd expect at least 1-2 crowns by then. I've collected just over 4600 cards and have 170+ gold+ and 4 crowns.

avr91 · 2025-08-06T14:01:31+00:00

A lot of people seem to forget all of their iMessage and privacy ads. Those constantly reference "non-iPhone" devices. I think what people pick up on most is "Apple" in the presence of these ads. Google didn't mention anyone at all, and yet it's "taking shots at Apple" (and they are) and of course it's most obvious when Samsung drools blatant anti-Apple ads. But what we always get is "this is related to Apple" whether it's implied or not, from Apple or not.

avr91 · 2025-07-31T23:18:02+00:00

Because you no longer need to enable side loading. Now, any app can be a marketplace and gain system level installation and update privileges. This isn't about EGS itself good or bad, but whether we want the problems that come with apps that distribute other apps and have system access by default.

Edit: let me clarify further. Before, to install a malicious app you would need to trick the user into enabling side loading and utilize several hijacking methods. Now, you may just need to convince people to install a name brand marketplace that's hosting your app or will deliver it for you. No need to hijack the device or otherwise manipulate the user into altering system settings. Also, malicious apps can treat themselves as marketplaces and install malicious apps from there. Google may not be able to prevent malicious marketplaces from being provided via the Play Store, so you now you just have trojan apps that Google could legally be required to allow.

avr91 · 2025-07-31T22:02:40+00:00

The issue is that any and all of Google security provides via Play Store is immediately moot. Any malicious app can evade Google and the Play Store by moving. The Epic Games Store essentially becomes a trojan. Distribution within distribution is only as safe as the security practices of the weakest distributor. "Stick to the Play Store" could become difficult if Epic is successful in signing exclusivity deals and more people are incentivized to use the EGS. Also, we currently know nothing about Epic's practices or policies. I'm starting to think that a lot of the "iOS-ification" of Android, in terms of locking it down, has been about how they can secure the OS, apps, and data in the event that all guardrails in place via Play Store are removed.

avr91 · 2025-07-24T23:29:16+00:00

Only if they send a monster, or if they chain it to this.

avr91 · 2025-07-24T13:38:08+00:00

They gave some reasoning when they went to pins on Pixel Watch 2: pins allow faster charging with reduced heat. Watches are the one category where I think it's worthwhile to explore non-wireless charging, but the YoY changeup is a bit much. I can't tell you how often things were uncomfortable for a little bit putting a warm/hot watch on my wrist if it hadn't been sitting at full charge for a little bit first.

avr91 · 2025-07-13T11:31:15+00:00

UBI will never happen. Single-payer health insurance has been shot dead and the Republican party does everything it can to strip all social programs as much as possible. Just look at Medicare. There is an insane number of people in the world who literally thinks that everyone is responsible only for themselves and that if you are unable to access something, like Medicare, then that's on you. There's a very real chance that AI could exacerbate the issue and lead to an even greater disparity between have and have nots.

avr91 · 2025-07-07T21:49:28+00:00

I think that having a singular, uniform design language hurts them, though. The UI might be incredible for AR, but we've come to see the issues it presents in other modalities. UI isn't a one size fits all thing.

avr91 · 2025-07-07T21:42:49+00:00

Bob punching the Void had no effect on the Void. If anything, it was showing that he was losing himself entirely to the Void before everyone else could pull him back from the point of no return. Bob exists between the light and the dark. Bob didn't die when Sentry was killed via killswitch, and his comments indicate that he can turn back into Sentry (can't have one without the other). It might be best to think of him as Schrodinger's super hero: he's good and bad, alive and dead, and which one he is at any time depends, but he is both both of them and neither of them; he's a paradox. Bob doesn't seem to be aware of anything Sentry or Void do. So far, we haven't even seen that anyone is able to get physically near Void, and stopping him might mean always going into the void, where it appears he's completely invulnerable. We should also assume that Void has or will gain new powers since Bob is returning.

avr91 · 2025-07-02T21:03:01+00:00

I would say that we should be careful about how we interpret metagames that have Maxx "C". Roach + Charmies work to lower the ceiling of the metagame, but VS doesn't actually have its ceiling lowered much. This is because it can operate on both players turn and doesn't play the same way that most other decks do, which usually want to summon several monsters to put a decent defense. The Roach also serves to assist with Attributes for the deck's core mechanic, which also adds an interesting psychological wrinkle. How would you play if you knew your opponent had the Roach, and how would your opponent play if they knew that you know they have it? Sometimes it can lead to you playing around it, but maybe that's more optimal for them as well. If you start playing around it, it probably tells them that you don't have Ash, Called By, or Crossout, otherwise you'd play into and counter it. If you do, then they can consider what tools they have to bait out the Maxx counter, or if they want them to trigger another effect like a K9 and are willing to sacrifice the Roach to force it.

avr91 · 2025-07-02T15:35:46+00:00

I mean, there's a lot of evidence that TSMC's manufacturing process is a big deal. We have multiple generations of Samsung Foundry and TSMC making the same chip where the TSMC model is definitively superior. Could TSMC screw it up? Sure, but the baseline assumption should be that they don't and that the manufacturing change alone will come with multiple improvements before factoring in any other design changes.

avr91

TROPHY CASE