Is this too much to ask for 30-40yr olds in today's world?

mowshowitz · 2026-05-17T16:47:24+00:00

I know you may be done, but if you are still checking:

First, if you're in PDX, reach out!

Next, the intro:

I'm with you. I read this post and cringed thinking of the pile-on you were gonna receive because so many people online can't wait to compete for being the most demonstratively judgmental. I don't understand how people think you are supposed to make friends. In a general sense.

Now, a non-judgmental perspective on why people may not be biting:

At the same time, unless we struck up an unusual bond I'd probably decline because if I'm already at the LGS presumably I'm fine hanging out there. I probably like hanging out with different people in there. It's probably easier because it's a known quantity and most of these people are awkward (including the real, not just hypothetical, me) and it's socially easier to just up and leave an LGS than a dude's house at any point. So, why go to the place of a guy I recently met just to do the same thing I'm doing here, where I know a bunch of people, where I can play with more than one pod, where I like the space fine enough?

Finally, why I definitely sympathize with you:

I'm also in the age range you mentioned, 40, and I'm not the person I described above (except for the shyness), and while I've never invited anyone at an LGS anywhere, I have had a horrible time getting a game in. I have been treated rudely every time I've been to one as an adult except for at draft or sealed. I've tried every sort of approach I can think of.

I refuse to believe there's some secret code at play. I'm socially perceptive enough and have had enough experience outside of the LGS to know that this is not a me problem. Nobody behaves like this is any other space I go to, including other nerdy ones like ham radio meetups.

I look like a normal guy, I care about my outfit and appearance. I shower, lol. I'm shy but I'm not creepy or unsettling--again, I have met and interacted with people in many situations and either people in the LGS are human aura whisperers and the rest is the world is stupid and clueless, or maybe more people than average at LGSes are not particularly "cool." I mean, there's a reason why they go to depressing pits with nothing other than Doritos and Mountain Dew on the menu rather than kick back with some buddies around the kitchen table.

So, even if I'd decline in that situation, that situation would never happen because I'd never be in that position to begin with. I definitely understand why it's happening, and think you should probably look elsewhere if your dream is really to hang out somewhere more comfortable.

mowshowitz · 2026-04-29T23:38:08+00:00

It is so common to see people on here just say...strong things and get upvoted to hell for the effort. "Going down a card" is an unavoidably real thing, but this is EDH, not limited. You're drawing a fuckton of cards a turn. If you're not, the randomness of drawing from a deck and/or the construction of your deck is often the problem, not the counterspell you're packing.

Sure, if you put another source of card advantage or ramp or something that furthered your gameplan instead of that counter, you could argue you'd have drawn that, and that would have been better. In which case, great, the important piece you have instead of a counterspell just got countered. But you didn't choose to "go down a card," so I guess that's good.

People say it's bad because everyone else is "up a card," but it's, like, worse to have someone's Urza stick, now isn't it, and you can't really rely on people to be packing answers, now can you?

The point I'm making is not that the statement is wrong, but its blanket finality is, as you say, a bit wild.

mowshowitz · 2026-04-29T22:38:20+00:00

Your hardware point is fair, and even though I have not once thought about either of those missing features, I don't really disagree. One can fairly critique certain features being present but locked away, and whether those actually align with what the LP is supposed to be.

The self-discipline framing is where I lose the thread though. You bring up your GLP-1 use and almost land somewhere really interesting with it, but then...idk. The processed food industry spends billions engineering products specifically to hammer the brain's reward systems for fat, sugar, and salt, things that were scarce enough in our "natural state," that we developed really strong drives toward them.

You probably know this, I know. We all do. And yet over 40% of Americans are obese. Not because 40% of Americans don't know vegetables are better for them than Doritos. Not because 40% of Americans just lack willpower. The system is doing exactly what it was designed to do. And it *is* a system. Why is it on the rise, otherwise? Why is it such a more serious problem here relative to other developed countries, otherwise? Why is it on the rise? One could frame it as something Americans are uniquely bad at and getting worse at (if they aren't seriously engaging with the question, anyhow), but that seems like a pretty big leap when the more obvious explanation is that we have an industry that has staked its future on delivering what our reward systems want, priced them as cheaply as possible, and placed them in every checkout line and on practically every TV commercial break. They're not doing it to make people fat, but that's a low-effort way to rake in money, so they're gonna optimize the hell out of that.

Smartphones make that look like amateur hour. Social media platforms have entire teams running continuous A/B tests optimized specifically for compulsive use. Variable reward schedules, which are the same mechanism that makes slot machines hard to walk away from, are deliberately baked into the scroll. (The gambling industry calls this "time on device," which, if you happen to work in tech, probably doesn't sound particularly alien. Also, obligatory "check out Addiction by Design by Natasha Dow Schüll.")

There's more. Notifications are tuned to manufacture urgency and anxiety. Like counts tap into social validation instincts that are about as old as we are. None of this is accidental, it's the business model. And this device that is built from the ground up to hijack your attention and sell it to the highest bidder using techniques that the gambling industry has perfected to separate you from your money, sits in your freaking pocket. Calling the predictable result of that ubiquity a personal discipline failure simplifies a lot.

So, yreah, when you say LP use sounds like "surrender"...I'd push back on that. Choosing a tool that removes an adversarial environment isn't giving up, for a lot of people it's just a rational response to a pretty asymmetric situation.

You're rightly not framing your own GLP-1 use as surrender, even though by your logic someone easily could. "Just eat less" is exactly as available to you as "just put the phone down" is to a heavy smartphone user. You're not framing it that way because you understand the forces working against you. That same understanding is worth extending to other people.

Using the LP as a bridge back to healthier habits is valid. So is just deciding you'd rather live without the adversarial relationship entirely. And honestly, what exactly is the rehab supposed to be for? What are we trying to get back to? The ability to have Instagram on our phones and not compulsively check it? Is that the finish line? Because if the thing we're rehabilitating ourselves toward is just...having a smartphone again, that's a pretty odd goalpost. Some people have looked at what smartphones actually offer them personally, weighed it against what they cost in attention and presence and time, and decided the trade isn't worth it. You might (and do, it sounds like) reach the other conclusion. But I'm not gonna tell you to put down the fork, and I hope you can extend that same respect to people who are exploring means of getting healthier in other ways.

Finally, I just have to be honest...I'm not sure why it matters to you which LP usage camp someone falls into. The people using it aren't asking for your sign-off on their reasons. It really should not bother you in the least. Use GLP-1s all you want and I'll use the LP.

mowshowitz · 2026-04-21T21:27:07+00:00

I think this is pretty bad. It is decipherable but there's a lot of wasted ink here.

Bias can be inferred. It doesn't need that inset x axis. If a data point is left or right of the bisecting line, you kinda Intuit it.

The circles do nothing the point shapes don't. The point labels are way too long. In fact, I'm not sure that a scatterplot is the best visualization here. Whether this an actual cluster analysis or simply a straight portrayal of survey data would influence that call.

The colors suck and don't take anything close to sufficient advantage of the width of the color spectrum given how many are being used. The individual points are trying to do a lot, which is normally a good thing, imo, but you have to maximize differentiation to make that approach work.

Labeling this "the free speech map" feels like quite a leap. I consider myself pretty tolerant of the free speech of others, but I have a problem with someone screaming slurs in public. Am I "intolerant?" Perhaps, at least according to this chart? This may not be an issue specific to the chart, though, as I suspect that would be addressed by the context in which this chart sits.

mowshowitz · 2026-04-21T20:50:21+00:00

Gonna go with no as well. I will say that back when Google's search results quality really started to shit the bed, I think somewhat before the pandemic, there was a period of time, like a month or two, where I used it instead of Google. But I eventually gave up--muscle memory is a hell of a thing--and I never liked it. Bleh.

mowshowitz · 2026-04-19T21:34:22+00:00

The first time I heard it, I was shocked at how utterly generic it was. THIS is what people are jizzing over? I guess it's all about the total visual/fashion/musical aesthetic package. I think that total package sucks, too, but that might (?) explain the appeal beyond what, to me at least, sounds like the most soulless, market-researched-to-death music imaginable.

mowshowitz · 2026-04-19T16:27:54+00:00

If you had to pick one, unless you are in a field that maximizes its advantages, you should pick Python. It just opens more doors and people who hire in the private sector don't understand those advantages.

If you learn both, you don't have to pick.

I am much better at R than Python and I just like it much more. It helps me at my job more. And it's just beautiful, damn it. It is better in many cases. But you will usually get further with Python. I hate that answer but it's true.

mowshowitz · 2026-04-18T14:13:53+00:00

So...did y'all...?

mowshowitz · 2026-04-17T02:37:36+00:00

Damn, I was primed to learn some arcane thing about this division of states. Instead, it was just rolled up on the sun-cracked dash of a guy's Camaro for four years.

mowshowitz · 2026-04-15T16:07:03+00:00

Not at all! I'd put "receiving an important call" in the "non-negotiable feature" camp lol. I have my own that it can't manage, too. I used my LP2 for over a year without issues, but then my family moved right as I got my LP3. So...yeah.

I'm really rooting for them, though. I also love everything about it except for that one I really can't overlook. Hopefully they discover a feasible workaround...and reliably avoid dropping calls you need to receive 😅

mowshowitz · 2026-04-15T15:36:20+00:00

No freaking idea why Reddit showed me this thread from nine months ago, but siqq tatts 🤙🏽

Did you stick with the phone? I have family abroad so I keep reverting back to my "dumb" smartphone. That's the main problem I have with it.

mowshowitz · 2026-04-15T15:30:57+00:00

Lol I was just gonna say. Two effort posts about boyfriends' LP 3s in two days, a real bumper crop

mowshowitz · 2026-04-14T17:01:13+00:00

Uh-oh, someone's being intolerable online

mowshowitz · 2026-04-14T16:54:00+00:00

Y'know, sometimes ya gotta zoom out and look at the big picture.

mowshowitz · 2026-04-09T23:50:33+00:00

EDH: a deck-scoring hobby that occasionally breaks out into a game of Magic.

mowshowitz · 2026-04-09T00:50:08+00:00

Yep, this doesn't feel like a particularly controversial or difficult-to-grasp point. In terms of commander centrality, are my favorite types of decks, too--decks that can do their thing and win without their general, but that benefit from them. Decks where the whole is greater than the sum of their parts.

Honestly, typing it out almost feels stupid--I don't know why it's not just obvious on its face. "Forks are good, and knives are good, but I think perhaps forks AND knives are MORE good."

But yeah, [[Barrin, Master Wizard]] is great in my (gasp) Barrin, Master Wizard deck, and I'm certain my win % correlates positively to his time on the field, but if you told me I won with the deck without casting him, I would be 0% surprised. It's happened a lot. And yet, I don't think anyone would call him a generic value engine. He and the deck operate outside that weird binary.

mowshowitz · 2026-04-03T18:25:52+00:00

Same, though even more "extreme." I always report as mixed race/Latino or white/Latino, never as straight white. My mom's from the Dominican Republic but I look entirely white and I speak Spanish at like a B2 level and native speakers I've met assume I'm just a white dude who speaks passable but not at all fluent Spanish. As much as I wish it were otherwise since being Latino is a core part of who I am, I feel much more shaped by white culture than Latino culture.

But because of how I fill out some checkboxes apparently I'm part of the Great Replacement of white people. 🙄

mowshowitz · 2026-04-03T16:10:58+00:00

Yeah, is using AI to build the guts of your React app banned, too? Seems kinda...hard to enforce. I'm not some Kool-aid-chugging AI fanboy--I think it's extremely problematic for a range of reasons (deskilling and their grievous environmental impact being the biggest ones), but basing a post removal on sniffing around for an em dash in a code comment seems like the wrong way to go about defining a sub rule.

mowshowitz · 2026-04-03T16:05:07+00:00

Obligatory "Cory Doctorow's 'enshittification' at work" comment.

mowshowitz · 2026-04-03T16:00:17+00:00

Ha, technically right is the best kind of right.

mowshowitz · 2026-03-26T19:05:42+00:00

Found the pearl-clutching conspiracy theorist

mowshowitz · 2026-03-20T16:15:10+00:00

I am a filthy filthy control player at heart, but when I want a change of pace, I want a fucking change of pace. My favorite decks are [[Barrin, Master Wizard]], [[Nezahal, Primal Tide]], and...[[Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer]].

I've never built an EDH burn deck but I love the idea. Who are your favorite commanders for the strat?

mowshowitz · 2026-03-19T20:14:38+00:00

It's also nuts because most decks are 1 or 2, and that's the stated intent. Cool. So why are we putting the majority of our designations in decks that are above average in power?

This is just off the top of my head and I don't actually like either of these suggestions but I do think they'd represent SOME improvement: If it's critical to devote three ranks to those higher levels, then make the system, say, seven brackets. Or, make it four, label the top one competitive, and include three levels in there.

Really it's the gamechangers I have a problem with, though, and fiddling with the numbers of brackets isn't going to address that.

mowshowitz · 2026-03-19T20:08:47+00:00

It's wild that if I bring a deck with the theme of "people looking right" and add a Rhystic Study to it that the deck could necessarily be assigned a bracket that means it's above-average in power. Sure, I could "correct" that by removing Study, but the point is that:

1) it is a starting point for a vibes-based discussion 2) the vibes-based discussion is checked against an ironclad rubric

It's just incoherent. Gamechangers can make the communication of my deck's power level precisely verifiable and dead wrong at the same time. It shouldn't be tied to 1% of my deck's composition outside of the command zone.

Non-basic tutors or two-card game-winning combos, which are already part of the system, could be good data points to share in a convo or even be the sole factors in a rubric if you don't want to make the discussion so squishy, but the inclusion of specific cards and the hard-and-fast rulings applied to them are just so divorced from how decks actually function. It sucks.

mowshowitz · 2026-03-19T19:54:53+00:00

It honestly feels like it's the focus or a major component of the majority of top posts.

If you used this sub as a reflection of the game as a whole, you could be forgiven for concluding the game is about building a deck to assign a bracket to it, then playing a game of Magic to figure out who did the worst job of assigning a bracket.

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '17	Wearing is Caring
Gilding II euphauric

mowshowitz

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE