Ok, let's turn it around. How surprised would you be if the court decides that Trump isn't allowed to run?Well, it's not completely impossible, but it would be a pretty big surprise.
Even if those existed in any significant capacity, the left-leaning position is usually to keep money out of politics, so by doing this they would act contrary to their own beliefs.Does this really support your case? It seems like all of these numbers here are pretty small, like all of them are below a million dollars. If it were really about money, there's hundreds of people in the USA that could easily outbid these puny favors and steer the justice in their direction.What people? Justice already is in favor of the rich, so it's not like much needs to be done there.
Well, left-leaning millionaires or billionaires
Does this really support your case? It seems like all of these numbers here are pretty small, like all of them are below a million dollars. If it were really about money, there's hundreds of people in the USA that could easily outbid these puny favors and steer the justice in their direction.What people? Justice already is in favor of the rich, so it's not like much needs to be done there.
This is also my general problem with the money in politics hypothesis. There's so little money that if it had causal influence, it seems to lead to absurd conclusions. This is a pretty extreme case where we're talking about one of only nine justices in the supreme court, so a person with enormous power, and he is purchasable by less than a million? That can't be right.I'm not sure what those adsurd conclusions are. Clarence Thomas threatened to step down as a Supreme Court judge because he didn't earn enough money to pay off his debts, and right-wing millionaires saw a way to keep him in that wouldn't cost them all that much, so they did. It's probably hard to bribe someone into ruling on a specific case in a particular way, but it's easy to keep people in power that you can expect to generally rule in your interest.
If you want an authoritarian president in particular, then Trump would be your guy, but do you really think justices want that?Yes, I think many Republicans want to end democracy, and Trump is currently their best shot at doing so. I can't speak to the judges personally, but they have largely supported the push towards authoritarianism in the past, and are financed by people who want the same thing.
Consider how many cases we have of people who've known Trump personally shitting on him in private while praising him in public, considering that probably only a small percentage of those ever get out. I would not be surprised if the conservative supreme court judges don't actually like Trump very much, and if they don't, that reduces the bias significantly.I don't really think whether they personally like him or not comes into it at all. It's more like, do they think that he is the best person to get them want they want? And I think he's still a useful tool for the authoritarian Christian right.
It simply seems to me that if a new mechanic is used, there should be a good reason for it, and in particular the concept should not be realizable with the existing mechanics.Using two Horses for this is virtually equivalent.May be. But i see not the relevance of your comment. Did you oversaw that only kingdom cards are subject for gain?
SwillUsing two Horses for this is virtually equivalent.
Action - Duration, $4QuoteIf this is the first time you played
a Swill this turn, at the start of your
next turn, discard the top card of
your deck. Gain an Experiment
per $3 it costs (round down).
Ringleader - $6
Action/Command
+1 Card
+1 Action
Play the card with the Ringleader token on it, leaving it there.
-
When you gain this, place the Ringleader token on a non-Command Action supply pile.
Traveller EvolutionAside from this Traveller line being too long, meaning you will probably never play its final card, Aspirant in particular does not work the way you think it does. When you exchange one Traveller for another, you do not gain the new Traveller. The only way to activate Aspirant's when-gain would be by trashing it and then gaining it from the trash.
[...]
Seaside + Hinterlands
[...]
Well in this case I would have strong doubts about the intent.Publishing copies of Mein Kampf with the intent that people will take it as a cautionary tale is, as far as outcomes are concerned, indistinguishable from publishing it with the intent that people will agree with the message.Hard disagree. In the former case, the published copy will likely be one with lots of academic commentary, whereas the latter would be the raw text, probably with some racist imagery on the cover.
The point of the argument is that the content being published is identical in both cases, e.g. just the raw text without any extra commentary or imagery.
Publishing copies of Mein Kampf with the intent that people will take it as a cautionary tale is, as far as outcomes are concerned, indistinguishable from publishing it with the intent that people will agree with the message.Hard disagree. In the former case, the published copy will likely be one with lots of academic commentary, whereas the latter would be the raw text, probably with some racist imagery on the cover.
How on earth would chess help you make better decisions elsewhere in life ever?When you avoid the bishop by only stepping on white tiles.
I think "If you can buy cards, and there are cards in the supply costing up to the $ you have, you must spend all your buys" covers the edge cases.I mean, technically, this condition would trigger when you play Black Market, which is of course nonsensical. But: Do you have to buy a card from BM?
Do you gain two Action cards or do you gain one and play it twice?QuoteCoach
Action-Command. $5
You may gain and play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $5 twice. Each other player may discard two cards from their hand to gain a copy of it (or a horse) to their hand.
Super weak, I don’t see how you can actually thin with a card that gets rid of one Estate and one Copper.Well, with 3 cards on the Tavern mat it is already stronger than Experiment. But it should probably return itself to the supply so that you can keep on getting new copies.
Even without that variety restriction the card would be quite weak.
Novel - Trait
After playing a Novel card, if there are 5 or more Novel cards in the supply, +1 Card. Otherwise, discard a card.
not sure whether that is a valid take on the PC dimension. It's trained to never choose sides on anything, and also to say that certain things are bad, and both drives contradict each other, but they are also arguably both PCI don't think "political correctness" is usually used to refer to not choosing sides.
Huh, I was just playing a game online, and suddenly every card was named Chewbacca. Someone, somewhere in the world must have been trying out the Kingdom.I for one would prefer a Chewbacca (First Mate). Which, funnily enough, is very flavorful.
If only I had had a Chewbacca (Mystic) or a Chewbacca (Sorceress) in my hand to play at the time.
But I'm open to change my mind if someone can demonstrate that it doesn't do the things I think it doesThe way I see it, this seems hardly possible.
So I think I should probably state what I expect MBTI to do:Why?
- I expect MBTI to be predictive of people's romantic interests. But that does not mean that profile A will want to date similar profiles, or that profile A will always date profile B. It means that if you are interested in someone with profile B, then anyone else you're interested in is much more likely to have a profile similar to B. So a correlation among different interests of the same person. I expect this to be stronger than Big5
- Same for friendships
- I expect MBTI to be super predictive of various professions, like becoming a processional chess or starcraft player (or any other esport that doesn't have team play), and probably also for lots of other professions (although not all). I expect some of these to be much stronger than Big5, although certainly not all
- I don't expect it to strongly correlate with income or happiness or longevity or health or IQ or whatever because there's just no obvious reason why it would correlate with these particular things. There are probably weak correlations because weak correlations exist between lots of things, but this isn't what it's primarily measuring.
- Obviously you should use percentages and not categories for all the above
Basically, I expect MBTI to be better at all the interesting stuff like actual personality differences and worse at all or at least most of the boring stuff like future income of job success
Really, you just need Sculptor.Well, you pointed out yourself why this is too good via the comparison with the landscapes.
How about a one-shot? Enterprise is a Silver that hangs around in your deck until you trash it for an extra-turn. You can get some economy in the opening and then pop it later when the timing is better, or take the extra turn right away. Regardless, you'll have keep getting more if you want the extra turns to keep coming. Unlike Mission and Journey, you can gain Enterprises with Workshops and the like.
Sidenote: props to DXV on the new errata wording, this makes extra turn cards SO much simpler, jeez where has this been all these years.
It is far too easy to consistently play this in an engine with a gainer. You just gotta play two stop cards each turn.
If Grammarly tells you one thing and GPT-4 tells you another, who do you trust?Not an expert, but this is my intuition:
Grammarly wants to put a comma after "time" in this sentence; GPT-4 says nahQuoteIn the second case, the x-axis denotes time and the y-axis vertical oscillation.
My intuition is with GPT-4 but idk, I don't know any grammar rules; I've learned English by pattern-matching not learning rules. But I feel like Grammarly is inconsistent and doesn't generally want commas in this kind of sentence
In the second case, [stuff that is specific to the second case], and [now I'm no longer talking about the second case but the general setting].In which case I think the comma would be appropriate because it bounds a parenthesis. But the actual structure is:
In the second case, [stuff that is specific to the second case] and [other stuff also specific to the second case].So the parenthesis stops only at the end of the sentence, and thus no further comma should be used.
