1
Rules Questions / Re: Premoves
« on: May 13, 2024, 07:59:42 am »
The bottom premove is for reacting, and you can autobuy by clicking on a card in your buy phase before playing your treasures.
Is the Moneylender autoplay on by default so you might not notice it? I would double check that.
So I had this short back and forth with a somewhat autistic internet friend and then kept thinking about whether or not it's appropriate/polite to inform them of the social subtext that they clearly missed. But I think there's just no way to do it that doesn't come across as combative
Ah, yes. It makes sense that you can't play the Overloard as a Pirate Reaction.. The Overlord can play an action, not a reaction.
I'm making some assumptions about the scenario here such as this happening when its not your turn, which you weren't specific about.
Q as in genderqueer is not more of a container term than the B.
I don't buy that. Bisexual is pretty staight-forward, whereas queer I think most people just consider a container, even if there's some asterisks
What makes the Q special though, other than being a more recent and less established addition? "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, genderqueer plus all the other people who are in this vague category" is not inherently less sensible than the same description without the genderqueer.
Because even if Q is not a perfect container term, it's still mostly a container term, and hence made redundant by the +, no? I mean, sure everything is technically made redundant by + as you point out, but there's more of a reason to explicitly name specific groups than approximate container terms.
Shelling Although ordinarily I'd say the Shelling point is the first item of the list.
Speaking of things that bother me, it shouldn't be LGBTQ+. "Queer" is already a catch-all; either make it LGBTQ or LGBT+
The "Q" doesn't always stand for queer (it sometimes stands for questioning) and "queer" is not exactly a catch-all because
- most of the prominent definitions of "queer" only include people who are not cis and/or not straight and therefore exclude e.g. cishet aros and cishet intersexual people
- in practice, the reclaimed "queer" is often used as a shorthand for genderqueer
- it is not entirely uncontroversial that the word has been successfully reclaimed, so the convention is that you shouldn't call other people queer unless they describe themselves as queer
It is redundant with the +, but so are all the other letters in the acronym.
mhh I suppose. I think then the obvious solution is to just say LGBT+ and leave the Q out of it. Definitely don't wanna exclude aroace people
Speaking of things that bother me, it shouldn't be LGBTQ+. "Queer" is already a catch-all; either make it LGBTQ or LGBT+
Paul Christiano named as US AI Safety Institute Head of AI Safety
That's... pretty great, actually. Paul Christiano is about the best person you could want in there. Eliezer, being his humble self, has previously described him as the only person in the world who disagrees with him despite a technical understanding of the problem.
Even more credit to Biden for his help in making this happen.
I’ve thought for a while that Potion would be a bit better if it came with +Buy. Makes the Potion more interesting if you wanted the Alchemy card but couldn’t trash the Potion, and also opens up the edge cases where even if you don’t care about the Alchemy card, you might be desperate enough for +Buy to purchase the Potion anyways.
* Sorcerer: +1 Card. +1 Action. Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If wrong, they gain a Curse.Which suggests that my thought process would go astray here too.
No Curse. With a more written-out-for-clarity "if wrong" it would just match Bounty Hunter.* Sorceress: +1 Action. Name a card. Reveal the top card of your deck and put it into your hand. If it's the named card, each other player gains a Curse.But as far as I can see this works just like Giant and Barbarian: there isn't a revealed card, so it can't be the named, so the unwritten otherwise, i.e. nothing, occurs.
No Curse.
You're failing to consider that we're talking about human language. In English, if someone claims "You are short", the answers "Not true" and "I'm not" are equivalent. Meaning that "It's not true that I'm short" and "I'm not short" are equivalent.
That's because you actually exist. "I'm either average or tall" would also be equivalent with both of those. If someone claims "God plays dice with the universe", the answers "Not true" and "God does not do that" are not equivalent, because the latter statement agrees that there is a God (at least in a metaphorical sense) and only disagrees about said God's modus operandi, while the former is what you would say if you don't agree there is a God at all.
I'm saying that "not true" and "God doesn't do that" are equivalent in normal language. The proper answer if you don't agree there's a God is rejecting the premise of the claim: "There is no God" or "I don't believe in God".
"The king is bald." -- "Not true." -- means you disagree that the king is bald.
"The king is bald." -- "There is no king." -- means you disagree with the premise.
When you define natural and supernatural that way you are missing the point. A lot of supernatural phenomenon are usually easily explained, although the explanations invoke a power that isn't easily observed. "How did the oracle know that?" - She was given revelation from a spirit with more knowledge than her. "How was the Red Sea split?" - YHWH did it. Here the supernatural distinction is important - the Red Sea doesn't spontaneously split, but a supernatural power did it. Claiming that that would be natural is missing the point of the distinction. What's natural is what's regular, what's possible to recreate and predict by simple observation. The methodology for intervention by supernatural beings is different. "Okay, the Red Sea split. How do we explain this?" Regular empiric science fails here, because you can't recreate it, but when you take into account the religiohistoric context, "YHWH did it" makes the best contender for an explanation. Why? The being that appeared to Mose in the burning bush used that name, claiming to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the forefathers of the Israelites, to whom he had revealed himself 400 years earlier. Then he said that he would deliver the Israelites from the slavery of Egypt, then the ten plagues came over Egypt in the way Moses had described by the command of God, and then the Israelites were released. When something happens that is impossible to explain using the naturalistic sciences, using the religious methodology to give an explanation is the most reasonable way, and in that case, calling the explanation "natural" doesn't make sense.
Another application of the religious methodology: I could give you a lot of evidence that parts of the Bible are of supernatural origin, that they are historically reliable, that it is psychologically helpful and so on, but the only reason I can give for why I believe it is true in its entirity is this: God has gained my trust.
Non-metaphysical objective laws of morality don't make sense to me, at least sans a creator or guided evolution. If morality is unchanging (which we suppose it to be when judging the sins of history), it must have existed before humans evolved. What made humanity evolve to give us the qualia of pre-existing moral laws, which are common to all men? And if moral laws evolved alongside us, in what way can it be objective, other than in the way that we have it in common?