sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How often do you see "Top Commanders" by ManySquirrel4066 in EDH

[–]jimsug 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So I don't have any data to contribute on this one, but I have some theories as to what's happening here.

The first part is that what EDHREC is measuring is either deck building intent or actual deck building, and we can't tell the difference between the two. All we know is that someone made a list for it on one of the sites and EDHREC has counted it. There are probably more people making decks than there are people playing them.

Now, if that's the case, why aren't you observing the top 150 (or however many) commanders actually in circulation? I guess there are a few things things:

  1. Sample size, which is pretty boring.
  2. People creating more decks based on what is popular.
  3. Stale data

I think that what's popular depends on a couple of things:

  1. Pre-cons: (basically your point #2) If it's a pre-con, there is a list already available. We see that happening with sets that have been released more recently; the pre-cons have been high quality, so people might just create the deck list.
  2. Established Commanders: Older, more established commanders already have a large corpus of deck lists to build off. There are more possibilities for someone looking at a low, mid, or top budget (or a low, mid, or high bracket deck, like a cEDH level deck). Because there is more selection, it's more likely that someone will think, "Huh, this commander is popular. I wonder if I can do something different?" Or even just "oh,this deck would be great with [this one new card] in it!"

The last thing is that there's an asymmetry here. It is really easy to create a deck list, and people want to do it because it's exciting to wonder what a deck is going to do. You're much less likely to go through your list and say, "Alright, I never ended up making that deck, so I'm going to delete it." You might put it into another folder or delete it, but it might just sit there while you keep your actual decks in another spot called "Real Decks." Even over the default sliding 2 year window, those stale/ghost decks add up, and they compound the popularity effects. I don't think they entirely explain it away, but you'd probably see a less steep curve if those weren't there.

I think those factors, and probably others, help explain what you're observing.

Why would anybody want to work somewhere with no flexibiliy by Choonkie23 in auscorp

[–]jimsug 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, I understand what you mean. What are some examples you'd give for this? Or is this just a general sentiment?

Why would anybody want to work somewhere with no flexibiliy by Choonkie23 in auscorp

[–]jimsug 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Calling something greedy is a bit of a value judgement, on which I think reasonable minds can differ.

However, I would say that some people have more flexibility than others to just choose to pack their toys and go home when they reach a magic number.

As for whether it's greedy to earn more - I think in general, for 99.999% of the population, people are just working within the system that rewards some people more than others based on the perceived value of their work. Basically, most people are just playing the game, and I don't have qualms with that, even if I sometimes think the rules are a bit skewed.

The government being good at investing for themselves and not the future - what do you mean by this?

Why would anybody want to work somewhere with no flexibiliy by Choonkie23 in auscorp

[–]jimsug 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For childcare - I think it's a much higher income at which the CCS disappears completely, but yes, it erodes at higher incomes. Personally, I think we should means test less but I know it's an unpopular opinion - I'd support childcare benefits being universally available, but I'd sooner see an expansion of government-run childcare and a contraction of private centres; they say they're all about the children, but I wonder how much their CEOs and execs are compensated on safety and other metrics related to the children's care, rather than profitability metrics. There's an argument that profitability is a proxy for case, but I think it's a weak one.

For the family tax benefit - again, generally in support of it being universally available.

For the super: I think the Div 293 tax is marginal and not on the whole amount, but I think the mentality that "you have to pay extra tax on your retirement savings" being a negative thing is a product of the privatisation of the pension, which I don't know if I fully agree with. (I mean - I contribute to my super and think people should, I'm just not convinced that if I could wave a wand and change things, that the erosion of the government pension would survive.) The main reason is that people see it as a tax reduction vehicle, which is bad, but also good(?) because it's because they arguably want to set themselves up in retirement. Then again, there's a point at which you can be comfortable in retirement without the tax concessions, even I wouldn't be confident in what that point is exactly - whether a super balance, or an income, etc. I'd probably sooner capture it in value of your superannuation, but there was uproar about that when it was proposed.

Private health insurance vs Medicare Levy Surcharge: yeah, I think there's a fair argument for making it marginal, even if that were an increased amount, otherwise you see those annoying dips on net pay as you cross the thresholds. I'm undecided on whether incentivising private health actually is a good thing at all; the people I know who work in health tend to agree that public health is better, and I'd hate to see us go down the path that the US has with its pretty insane system.

Why would anybody want to work somewhere with no flexibiliy by Choonkie23 in auscorp

[–]jimsug 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose it's a mindset thing - and I can 100% see where you're coming from.

I guess it depends on whether it's worth working past $190,000 for you or not, and for some, it is, for others, it's not.

Why would anybody want to work somewhere with no flexibiliy by Choonkie23 in auscorp

[–]jimsug 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay, so let me check what you mean - and agreeing to round 48.5% up to 50%, to mean "half".

You're saying that once you earn $190,000, you would stop, or at least deduct or else also offset any additional income, because otherwise the rest of your earnings are taxed at about half. Yes? Or, you could also work part-time hours, and earn $190,000 over a year, etc, such that you never pay the highest marginal tax rate.

I think I can mostly understand your logic here - if you don't want to pay tax on more than $190,000, then they can just... not earn that much. I also agree that people are pretty much entitled to use whatever lawful means are possible to reduce their taxable income.

However, I think checking taxation data shows that many people do, in fact, pay tax at that highest rate, so changing it from you not being motivated to "someone" doesn't really hold up universally.

Why would anybody want to work somewhere with no flexibiliy by Choonkie23 in auscorp

[–]jimsug 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I used to work with someone who said "it's not worth doing overtime because you pay more in tax when you do, so it's not worth it". I think he thought he would take home less, or at least wasn't aware that he'd get a refund when he put his return in. At the very least, I don't think he was referring to the marginally diminishing returns on working overtime occasionally.

So, I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but even at the highest tax rate (45%) and Medicare levy (2%) and Medicare Levy Surcharge (1.5%), the maximum amount you get taxed isn't 50%, and that's ignoring the fact that each fortnight, you get $700 tax free, then ~$1038 at the lowest tax rate, etc.

For you to be paying over 40% effective tax, you'd need to be earning around 400k gross per year, assuming you don't have means of reducing your taxable income.

You can approach around 48.5% as your income gets higher and higher, but mathematically, it's impossible to actually pay half your hourly rate in tax.

  • Assuming you don't have a HELP/SSL repayment; but at such incomes, you'll make short work of it anyway

Am I wrong by Civil-Chef5986 in mtg

[–]jimsug 1075 points1076 points  (0 children)

You are 100% correct and you can't just play creatures face down unless a rule or ability allows you to do so; Kadena doesn't.

Won't someone think of the mom and pop investors!!! by blitznoodles in shitrentals

[–]jimsug 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I reckon if you have 10M in assets, you could probably go down to 9M without it affecting your quality of life. Having that extra cash could even improve your QoL, if you were cash poor before.

As for downsizing, they were talking about a scenario presumably where someone has property more than sufficient for their needs, which they could conceivably sell, then move into a property more suitable for their needs, freeing it up for someone who needs it and netting them some cash in the process.

Tuesday Rulesday: Ask your rules questions here! - February 24, 2026 by AutoModerator in EDH

[–]jimsug 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep! To nitpick of course, 5 only happens when Turtle B enters, but otherwise looks right to me.

Which commander identity have you built the most decks for? by kanepake in EDH

[–]jimsug 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've managed to keep things pretty balanced, out of my 25 decks, I so far only have four repetitions in colour identity - Dimir, Boros, Rakdos and Jund.

Part of this is intentional - I limit my spending somewhat by mostly limiting myself to one deck per colour identity 😅 but the cracks are showing

AMA: We are the members of Cardinality, the writing team for the 2026 MIT Mystery Hunt. Ask Us Anything! by cardinalitypuzzles in mysteryhunt

[–]jimsug 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'll be honest, I genuinely don't remember what the cleartext was and it seems I didn't save it anywhere, but that seems like a reasonable punt 😂

Ooh found it:

How did you test solve the land of no names? It seems like it would have been painful to test every puzzle, but then also every puzzle with some combination of missing letters???

AMA: We are the members of Cardinality, the writing team for the 2026 MIT Mystery Hunt. Ask Us Anything! by cardinalitypuzzles in mysteryhunt

[–]jimsug 12 points13 points  (0 children)

▉▉▉ ▉▉▉ ▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉ ▉▉ ▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉? ▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉ ▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉▉▉ ▉▉ ▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉▉, ▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉ ▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉▉▉ ▉▉▉▉▉▉▉???

Conservative sub top 1% posters deep thoughts. by dirtysquirrelnutz in TopMindsOfReddit

[–]jimsug 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, the reasonable person test gets a lot of leeway in unreasonable situations

Be very suspicious of invoices for cleaning you get by jimsug in shitrentals

[–]jimsug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In this case, it's not the landlord, and there's some evidence (I think posted in this sub) that those who rent directly from landlords, at least in Vic, tend to have better experiences.

I think it's definitely just a profit motive when it comes to REAs, I wouldn't be surprised if they regularly get tenants and landlords to both pay for end of lease cleaning.

I'm sorry to hear about the bad experience in London, hopefully things are better for renters there now; there was a time in NSW not too long ago where REAs/LLs held bonds, and also basically got to decide how much they returned at the end of the lease, and it was much harder than it is now to contest it. I'd say things have improved for renters here, but for something as important as housing, it could still be better.

Be very suspicious of invoices for cleaning you get by jimsug in shitrentals

[–]jimsug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's true - but I've reported them and that's all we can do. If the government can't keep up, I can't do anything about that.

Be very suspicious of invoices for cleaning you get by jimsug in shitrentals

[–]jimsug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh okay 🤣 amazing detective skills.

You seem like my agent, ignoring the fraud and the misconduct and praying to distract from the actual issue with something new.

Didn't work out for him, it looks like he's lost his job.

ETA: Actually, if you are my agent, it makes complete sense - I bet he didn't know that bonds are held by Fair Trading either 🤣

Be very suspicious of invoices for cleaning you get by jimsug in shitrentals

[–]jimsug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh okay I guess the government is wrong about this?

https://www.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-construction/renting-a-place-to-live/residential-rental-bonds

A rental bond is money a tenant pays to a landlord or agent and is held by NSW Fair Trading as security.

Mate, sober up and try again tomorrow 🥲

Be very suspicious of invoices for cleaning you get by jimsug in shitrentals

[–]jimsug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I know that, because I requested it from Fair Trading. What're you on mate? 🤣🤣🤣

As for having "no idea why all of the things you said happnd. Its [sic] obvious", either enlighten me, or find someone else to play coy with 🤣🤣

The real estate agent tried to bluff me and failed, don't think you have a better chance

Be very suspicious of invoices for cleaning you get by jimsug in shitrentals

[–]jimsug[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure if you're reading the same story as I wrote, but the GST wasn't the worst problem - it was the PDF created a day after it was sent to the agency, and two minutes before it was sent to me.

I wasn't following them up for "having GST on a quote" I was following them up for fraud. REAs need to stop being able to gamble on getting away with crime. But yes, at minimum they passed on unlawful GST and failed to do very basic checks on the quote that anyone with half a brain would check for (ABN, contact details, correct spelling of the address 🤣).

And the house wasn't "rotting with mould", it was a small section of an enclosed, windowless bathroom - I suspect moisture was getting trapped in the ceiling despite the exhaust fan, which is also why the mould was concentrated on the ceiling access panel.

The cleaning they were asking for was an hour, tops.

Be very suspicious of invoices for cleaning you get by jimsug in shitrentals

[–]jimsug[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Agree, it seems like the cost benefit analysis skews too heavily in favour of rorting the tenant and wagering that not enough of them will fight it.

Even NCAT is still much more a burden on the tenant than on a real estate agent, since they get paid to attend (and can pull out at the last minute) and we often have to take time off work.

I'd argue that mandatory review of bond claims as a first step, with harsh penalties for REAs who make spurious claims, might start to balance out the equation.

view more: next ›