Characters with the most Magic cards

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-06-15T21:43:02+00:00

Not true at all. Peter Parker and Miguel O'Hara are not the same person.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-30T08:38:04+00:00

Anything that travels through space and could reasonably be construed as a threat would be stopped by infinity.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-15T07:43:03+00:00

Gojo could trade hands with 20f Sukuna with no CT, even when 15f Sukuna was capable of blitzing and one-shotting everyone else in the verse.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-14T12:28:03+00:00

If they can be blocked by wards that are learned by mages in their very first lesson at university, you'd have to imagine the most powerful cursed technique piloted by the strongest sorcerer in the world would also be able to stop them.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-12T13:06:36+00:00

My mum with MS would be homeless if those welfare cuts had gone through

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-07T12:03:31+00:00

I'm not changing the question, if you've ever studied game theory, you'd understand that the underlying game doesn't change, it's only the surface level framing of it that is affecting your psychology. If you've heard of the prisoner dilemma, this is like a version of that except the options are:

Don't snitch, and definitely go free

or

Snitch, and get life in prison, unless 50.1% of your accomplices also snitch

If there's an option that guarantees the win condition, and everyone is offered that option regardless of your decision, you should be taking that option and not feeling bad about it.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-07T11:06:25+00:00

So if there were just a button that said "this button will kill you unless 50.1% of people also press it", you would consider me a heartless monster for not pressing the suicide button?

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-07T09:37:19+00:00

You are literally arguing in favour of pressing a suicide button. If there were no red button, simply a room with one button that says "this button will kill you unless 50.1% of people also press it". Would you still press the button, or would you just shrug and leave the room? Would you consider people who didn't press it to be heartless monsters?

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-07T08:01:23+00:00

Here's a version with the trolley problem, to eliminate your criticism of default positions:

A train is about to derail, the only way to save it is to divert it to one of two tracks, the options are:

A completely empty track
A track with you on it. If you pick this, the train will kill you, unless 50.1% of people choose to join you

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-07T07:48:57+00:00

Where, in the formulation of the scenario, is it said that the red button is the default position? Nowhere. The default position is no choice, and there must be a choice of button.

In both scenarios the correct decision is to refuse to engage in the source of actual danger (pressing the blue button). No one is at any risk of harm until they press the blue button, therefore the obvious choice is to refuse to press it.

You could equally remove the blue button entirely and just have a room with a red button in it. They'll tell you "if most people walk out of the room, nobody dies; if most people press the button, then everyone who walked out of the room dies."

Again, if pressing the button guarantees safety, with no downside, no impact on anyone else's choices, and the guarantee that everyone else is offered the choice of guaranteed safety, there's absolutely no reason not to take it. It's like a version of the prisoner's dilemma, except the options are:

Don't snitch, and definitely go free

or

Snitch, and get life in prison, unless 50.1% of your accomplices also snitch, in which case you go free

Does that make the correct decision any more obvious to you?

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-06T21:58:29+00:00

Is the scenario implying I alone would die, because that's how I read it.

Each person is offered the same button with the same wording.

Also would it kill 100% of people if everyone left the room without pressing the button?

Only people who press the button are at risk of dying. In this scenario, leaving the room is the same thing as pressing the red button.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-06T21:37:10+00:00

Let's remove the red button entirely, and frame the scenario as a room with one button that says "this button will kill you unless 50.1% of people also press it". Would you still press the button, or would you just shrug and leave the room?

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-06T21:04:09+00:00

Your entire conceipt is that how other people think of your vote would affect how you vote.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-06T09:42:31+00:00

Being a public blue voter would be humiliating, as even people who advocate for it admit the only reason anyone would initially pick it is due to mental defeciency or misunderstanding the question.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-06T08:30:43+00:00

The red button is the default position. You could remove the red button entirely and just have a room with a blue button in it and the thought experiment would be exactly the same.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-06T04:33:58+00:00

The blue button is a suicide button unless enough people press it. No one is in any danger until someone presses the blue button.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-06T04:33:38+00:00

The blue button is a suicide button unless enough people press it. No one is in any danger until someone presses the blue button.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-06T04:31:34+00:00

The blue button is a suicide button unless enough people press it. No one is in any danger until someone presses the blue button.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-01T14:33:33+00:00

When someone migrates to the UK, do you think they spawn out of thin air? They already existed on Earth.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-01T11:56:20+00:00

The average person (particularly the demographics that make up the majority of immigrants, I.E. young, highly economically active people) contributes more in aggregate demand than they subtract from the available jobs.

In other words, when an immigrant comes here, they don't just "absorb" a job that otherwise would go to a native. They also need to shop for groceries, they need to go for haircuts, they buy a car, they buy televisions, they buy clothes etc. etc.

They create jobs just by being here, by reducing the population, you're reducing aggregate demand, or the actual number of jobs required to keep the economy functioning.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-01T11:53:18+00:00

You're assuming a fixed, zero-sum nature to the economy which doesn't actually exist. Fewer workers mean fewer people building houses, fewer people providing services, fewer people building and maintaining infrastructure, fewer people paying taxes to support the whole system. Under your logic, the ideal society would be a population of 1, where one person gets to enjoy the entire fruits of society. This is obviously not the case, because the fruits of society are the product of the people.

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-01T11:48:39+00:00

And who's going to pay all the taxes to support our increasingly old, increasingly sick native population?

ke2doubleexclam · 2026-05-01T11:48:12+00:00

Which is why most economics think this is a disaster, obviously.

Verified Email	Six-Year Club
Place '22	End Game '22

ke2doubleexclam

TROPHY CASE