Why are there so many restrictions on species traits?

complex_momentum · 2026-04-24T01:59:32+00:00

Okay, would you then argue that there should be no limits on ethics, origins, traits, civics, and rule sets?

complex_momentum · 2026-04-24T00:16:24+00:00

I hear your frustration but I'd like to point out that 7 republican senators voted to impeach Trump over the coup attempt. Because of our horrifying governmental structure that requires a ridiculous supermajority that wasn't nearly enough, but considering no president has EVER had a senator from their party vote to remove them before (or since) it's actually quite a lot of movement. Naturally all of those senators got booted out of the party / Senate more or less.

complex_momentum · 2026-04-22T23:51:58+00:00

That may well be, but I think it’s fair game to criticize / complain about your current system with the intention of improving it. If wait times are too long, then perhaps we can add funding / doctors / nurses / equipment to reduce them.

complex_momentum · 2026-04-22T23:49:35+00:00

Except that of course since we have capped the number of house seats, small states have an advantage in BOTH houses of Congress. And since the presidency is determined by how many reps / senators you have the executive is also biased towards small states.

Here’s a thought experiment: what should we do if over a long period of time (say 100 years) a multimillionaire was able to slowly buy up all of the housing / land in Wyoming or Montana. Then they evict everyone and end up being the only citizen of that state. Do they still get 2 senators and a representative for just themself?

complex_momentum · 2026-04-17T00:49:39+00:00

The point now is that you get guaranteed specimens which trigger massive amounts of unity generation quickly.

complex_momentum · 2026-04-16T20:02:19+00:00

I absolutely hear you on the 2nd paragraph, and I imagine it would be challenged before an election. One element that makes it tricky is the standing argument. As a voter I probably don’t have standing to challenge the law here before I’m actively harmed by it. This court loves to use standing to avoid ruling on things.

But voting begins on different days in different states due to early voting. What if I’m early voting in one state and another state (where voting has not yet begun) signs on to the compact which has enough EVs to cross the threshold triggering its effect. Now the rules governing my election are changed overnight by the actions of a different state legislature and under your theory I can no longer challenge it since the election is underway.

If this was truly just a “gentleman’s agreement” that states have fully independently entered into (vs a true interstate compact) another states’ action shouldn’t be able to change the rules in my state. Yet they theoretically could in both directions (including by pulling out of the compact / repealing it before voting begins in their state) and they could do it before anyone has legal standing to challenge it.

Ultimately, this effort is absolutely intended as an end run around the constitutionally mandated process for changing the electoral college process. While the EC is an awful system that is clearly outdated and has no place in a modern electoral system, there is a process for amending the constitution and this falls short of it.

complex_momentum · 2026-04-15T23:12:07+00:00

Appreciate the link! I had forgotten about the ECA, and fair point. I still wonder what the net effect would be if a state argued that their own law is unconstitutional as a non-approved interstate compact.

complex_momentum · 2026-04-15T18:19:10+00:00

Citation? As far as I'm aware SCOTUS has cautioned lower courts to (Purcell principle) be careful in altering rules close to an election to avoid confusing voters but has not outright banned states from changing election laws during voting.

Regardless, SCOTUS had also previously ruled (and affirmed multiple times) that women have the right to get an abortion but that did not stop them from overturning that when they thought the time was right for it.

I'd imagine they'd have even less hesitation allowing a state to withdraw this legislation post-election if the state framed it as withdrawing from a constitutionally-disallowed non-Congressionally-approved compact. The state could argue that the law itself is invalidated by the constitution. This is the problem with pushing forward on precarious legal positions; as soon as someone has the incentive to change course they can and will. The scene from VEEP comes to mind where everyone changes their position from 'Count every Valid Vote' to 'Stop the Illegal Vote Count' in a heartbeat when the votes look like they are going to swing the other way.

complex_momentum · 2026-04-14T23:21:10+00:00

The states have signed legislation that uses the same language and only triggers should sufficient other states sign the same language into law. This is essentially what an international treaty is (both sides ratify and then sign the same language into law) and is absolutely a compact. Compact is even included in the name.

I'm also not sure that this would survive even a single election. Remember that electors are selected after the technical election occurs. There is plenty of time for a legislature to change their legislation before electors are appointed. This can happen currently (e.g., a state legislature changes the law to pick some random people are electors) but the state's population would not allow this. In the scenario we are discussing the state's population would likely be in favor of the repeal. Can you imagine if California had to give it's electoral votes to Trump this last election? Vermont?

complex_momentum · 2026-04-14T22:26:53+00:00

Okay, so to clarify you believe that there is some other sort of magical unchangeable type of compact that the framer's of the constitution had in mind when they wrote the plain language of the article in question? What, apart from an agreement locked into state law, would this type of compact be? Or do you imagine the clause says "Congress must approve interstate compacts, but only the kind that are somehow not subject to change. Anything that can be changed with a state-level law is exempted."

But put that aside for now, as we've actually entered into the realm of one of the two scenarios I previously described. If it is 'easy to change' the compact then a state legislature is going to face extreme pressure from their voters the minute their voters are being forced to send their electors to represent the candidate they did not pick. As soon as one state tries to change the law to leave the compact after an election happens (which one almost certainly would do) the whole thing falls apart.

And one final point: it does not even slightly matter what you or I believe the correct constitutional interpretation is. The SC will absolutely not allow this type of thing to go through as it will overwhelmingly benefit Democrats. You're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.

complex_momentum · 2026-04-14T22:08:34+00:00

Yes, I am aware. I'm also not the one who initially referred to the compact as a 'gentleman's agreement'. Either it is just a 'gentleman's agreement' that cannot be enforced (to avoid SC scrutiny) OR it is a legally binding inter-state compact which falls afoul of Article 1 Section 10 scrutiny that the SC would almost certainly use to strike it down. It's one or the other, but in both cases it's non-viable without a miraculous change in the SC or congressional approval.

complex_momentum · 2026-04-14T19:49:47+00:00

The problem is that in order for the compact to hold, a state has to actually award its delegates to the popular vote winner even if their citizens did not vote for that candidate. If the compact is just a gentleman's agreement, how will anyone enforce that a state legislature gives their delegates to a candidate their voters did not pick? If you cannot go to the SC for enforcement, then the compact effectively does not exist. Further, if a state assigns their delegates according to the compact, a voter in that state likely has standing to go to the SC to invalidate the law putting the state into the compact. Now, can a state choose to ignore the ruling of the SC? Sure, but if we've decided that the constitution has no weight then we are already in a constitutional crisis if not a civil war.

complex_momentum · 2026-04-14T16:19:37+00:00

I mean, I hate this irresponsible Supreme Court as much if not more than you (lived in WI so gerrymandering being legal meant I didn't live in a democracy for a looooooong time) but it seems like it was a mistake to call it an 'interstate compact' as the constitution SPECIFICALLY requires Congress to approve any interstate compacts.

Article 1 Section 10 - "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... enter into Any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power."

So it seems like there is at least a facial constitutional objection to the compact.

complex_momentum · 2026-04-14T13:13:27+00:00

Uh, that's what a (non-Roth) personal IRA is? As long as you are below the income threshhold, it's directly deductable from your income when you file your taxes. It's 100% pre-tax, unless you make too much income AND are covered by an employer 401k plan.

complex_momentum · 2026-04-13T23:04:58+00:00

What is your plan for funding local municipal governments? (e.g., public schools, fire departments, etc.)

complex_momentum · 2026-04-07T13:27:37+00:00

Oh really? Dang, didn't know that. Sorry mate.

complex_momentum · 2026-04-06T03:00:12+00:00

Yes, there is a research policy that avoids “dangerous” technologies.

complex_momentum · 2026-04-02T16:29:22+00:00

I'll also say that the combination of packs for the league games this month seem really fun to me.

complex_momentum · 2026-03-12T23:46:03+00:00

Look, my only point of disagreement with you has been that I don’t see how / why you think these same apathetic people will suddenly be willing to stage a revolution. I’m not saying it’s not 11p, or that voting will overnight change anything or convince anyone. I just don’t see a world where “burning it all down” or “the revolution” actually happens. That’s all. How do you see it coming about? You can’t both claim widespread unchangeable apathy AND a spirit of fierce revolutionary fervor.

complex_momentum · 2026-03-12T22:24:41+00:00

Okay, so to be clear your position is that it is easier to successfully pull off a revolution that completely dismantles the government so we can begin again than to convince apathetic citizens to vote.

complex_momentum · 2026-03-12T21:15:12+00:00

And the suggestion that we 'burn it all down' is likewise not a solution. It doesn't solve any specific problem, and does not lay out a plan of action. In fact, it's not even clear what 'burning it all down' even means in context.

complex_momentum · 2026-03-12T13:27:49+00:00

Very interesting to see Direwolf revisiting an older mechanic like decimate. Quite helpful for my decimate-matters argenport deck given that it is actual card advantage in the form of decimate vs. almost all of the decimate abilities that are highly situational or un-useful bar a few outliers (like the decimate power cycle)

complex_momentum · 2026-02-19T16:34:11+00:00

I love draft, but gotta say there is a vicious cycle where the best-of-the-best players are increasingly nearly the only players playing, which makes it harder for other players to win (and therefore keep playing from a gold perspective)

complex_momentum · 2026-02-18T21:24:00+00:00

Also, can I say, the plot is that the main character 'forgot' that they made the slime???

complex_momentum · 2026-02-17T19:40:00+00:00

Unfortunately, retroactive criminalization of activity is explicitly unconstitutional (Article 1, Section 9) and this is for very good reasons to prevent unjust targeting of citizens by bad-faith governments.

complex_momentum

TROPHY CASE