tanjtanjtanj

So your position is that if you can predict someone's arguments (valid or otherwise) before they make them that those arguments are less valid? Maybe if you had pre-countered them but looking at your comments here and the linked blurb that doesn't seem to be the case.

That's not quite right (other than the electronic part obviously). There were traveling coach shows, dance and performance halls, and at a minimum week-long performance events (religious ones too) before anyone here on earth was alive.

The last time I called Apple the phone service employee hit me with “I understand your issue as I am also a student” when I replied that I wasn’t a student he then followed it up with “Oh, neither am I”

A couple anecdotes from me:

A (quite large) company that I worked for stopped offering surfaces to employees after the average lifetime over the 3 years they offered them was under 1 year. We even had a terrible batch of Dells at the same time that still handily outlived the surfaces.

Small sample size (N=3) but, nobody I know that works at Microsoft uses a surface or any other Microsoft branded laptop.

Your experience is way different from mine.

I had some very basic "double check" type questions about my very straightforward taxes I threw at the bot because it was handy and it didn't seem to know that it was even related to taxes or tax software and literally directed me to seek out someone who might know about taxes. I then asked it about the weather and it was able to talk freely about that, just seems like they're reselling another model with a different prompt up front or a RAG.

Ah, I have I guess an old version of the CR downloaded from when I was a judge and TO where rule section 722 is "Controlling Another Player," weird reorganization there.

Are you active in judge forums or social media at all? Huge threads on prepared with these arguments (I didn't come up with the idea as I now longer play or judge).

Regardless of whether you think this one example is confusing, WOTC came out a few years back and said they were sacrificing clarity for more natural language as a development goal and it's clearly noticeable in the cards.

Sorry, throwing out a text because its reminder text is a cop-out, that's the only way 99%+ of players are going to interact with the rules. The rule makes sense when demonstrated but from a logical step-by-step when following what it says on the actual cards it does not actually function in a way that conforms to the way it is supposed to work.

Well there was a huge discussion on what it means amongst judges. On plain reading it does not do what it states it does. Start just with the phrase "its spell" - those words are entirely undefined until getting into the rulings, and don't mean what they mean in other contexts. It makes no mention of the prior rules that it sort of hacks into this either.

I have no idea what rule 722 has to do with prepared.

There was an era about 10-15 years long where that was true but modern cards often fall back on very loose language that they tighten up with rulings prior or sometimes after release. See the language behind the "Prepared" key word in the newest set for a striking example.

The kobo store has problems with DRM but Kobo devices do not. they’ll open whatever you put on the file system (and it’s treated as a first class citizen along with anything you’ve bought from them). They also are extremely easy to install custom firmware on.

Really? Because he invented the gambling part of MTG - booster packs and then introduced drafting to get people to crack even more.

He’s not full time (or even part time) on MTG these days but he is often called in as a consultant.

The reason they have the “nanny dog reputation” is because a breeder made it up in the 1970s and then it caught on through shares and likes through Facebook in the late 2010s.

There is no historical basis for the contents of what was basically a chain letter.

The nanny-dog thing is a myth made up by a breeder and shared through basically Facebook chain letters. There is no historical basis that pits ever were recommended to watch babies.

The dish was not emulating anything like that, it just required a second set of chopsticks.

I’m actually curious here, not trying to question your experience but does other people’s food regularly contaminate your food when you eat at the same table as them?

I’ve lived with a celiac sufferer before and I’ve never heard of something that extreme, but everyone’s different.

I ate at a very nice restaurant (think The Menu) in Kagaonsen last week and the main course was served with lacquered chopsticks but another course was served with disposable chopsticks and the waiter actually broke them and rubbed them together for me. I think the social faux pas is making a show of doing it.