Sage_the_Lawyer

Interesting. Hilarious. And annoying. Thanks for the info, that analogy helped a lot. I don't think TCG players will ever cease to amaze me with some of the shit they pull, I love it.

I guess I don't really understand Yu-Gi-Oh all that well. I know in Magic there's a bit of a meme deck based around the card Battle of Wits, which basically says if you have over 200 cards in your library at the start of your turn you win the game. But it was never truly competitive because other decks would run it over before they could find and play one of those 4 cards in their 300 card deck or whatever. The synergies in other decks were just too strong for it to survive long enough. People occasionally got lucky enough to place well in a tourney here and there, but it was never a meta deck in competitive play.

Kinda figured that same problem would exist in Yu-Gi-Oh but yeah, I don't really know enough to say.

I see what you're saying about the shuffling, that would be annoying as hell. Do Yu-Gi-Oh rounds not have time limits?

It doesn't apply to just basic lands, yeah. But any special lands you can only have 4. It's been a rule for as long as I've played (since 2017), but I do know it wasn't a rule at the start of the game. I think they added it pretty early on though, as a response to people making decks out of just channel and fireball for instant wins.

And, sure, you could keep the ratio of card types the same, but while I don't play Yu-Gi-Oh, I have to imagine there are some cards better than other cards. So to make a deck that big, you'd have to include cards that just aren't as good. Playable, sure, but I can't imagine it finding its best cards consistently enough to be competitive.

According to a quick google, you can only have up to three of the same cards in a Yu-Gi-Oh deck. So you can't keep the ratios the same.

I don't play Yu-Gi-Oh, but I play Magic, and it's similar there, but you can have up to four of any card.

I imagine most trading card games are like this, otherwise you could just make a deck of only the most OP card or something. Not exactly fun to build, or play, or play against.

I think this has to be it. There's no way to justify putting an SEC team in over any of these teams this year. Undefeated conference champs are all locks, regardless of how you feel about strength of conferences, you just can't leave out a P5 team that literally hasn't lost unless there's 5 of them. So, last spot is between Texas, Bama, Georgia, Ohio State.

All have fairly similar resumes, except one of them is a conference champion, and beat another one head to head. That puts them over the top.

You could argue (correctly) they also have the worst loss of the 4, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives, and that was in a rivalry game where things are always a little weird. And it's not like Oklahoma is outright bad. Plus it took some last second heroics. While it's the worst loss of those 4, it's not a bad loss. So I think you have to put in the conference champion.

So, sorry SEC fans, it's your turn to learn how it feels to have a team that's probably good enough to win left out of the playoffs. That's how it goes.

Edit: welp, I was wrong. FSU got screwed. That's disappointing. Can't wait for a real playoff.

It was once a crime for black people to sit at the front of a bus in America. Guess that means Rosa Parks is responsible for the Holocaust.

Thank the gods we had you to point it out.

Not a fan of Maro's response here. The complaint was that the competitive environment feels less engaging, and he basically just said "but we're throwing even more money at it, so you shouldn't complain."

It's not a solution. How is that extra manpower being used to actually promote competitive play? Moreover, does he not see that the focus on casual has side effects on competitive? There needs to be more focus on outreach to competitive players, not just putting more people on the team.

Idk, feels like he missed the mark on this one. It's not about bad design, it's about bad promotion and engagement, not about the amount of resources being devoted to it.

I get the feeling (I wouldn't really know, haven't been there in months) that Reddit is still significantly better. Sure, it's worse now, but it still has active communities on pretty much any topic imaginable. Lemmy is on its way, but won't be there for a few years I think.

And is the issue of whether Republicans should invoke the Comstock Act to ban abortion going to be directly voted on? Because if not, it's not in a literal sense.

I certainly agree that it's a very important issue to understand, but we will not be voting, directly, literally, on whether or not to ban abortion nationwide. We will be voting on candidates who might try to do that though.

This is good advice, I appreciate it. But I should clarify, I definitely won't be launching my practice before I'm comfortable with the OS. I'm probably going to take some other user's suggestions and do some test runs on my home machine to figure things out. I'm not launching tomorrow, there's no real rush. My current contract runs until May 2024. So I've got 6 months ahead of me to figure things out.

Oh I'm aware the OS is free. The affordability I was asking for was for the actual computer to run it. I guess that part wasn't Linux-specific. Mostly just looking for a good option for a work computer that will last a while. Will probably just get some kind of refurb laptop, I've always had good success with those.

But if someone has a specific recommendation I'm all ears.

Yes, mostly paperwork and email for sure. Some basic spreadsheet stuff for tracking clients and payments and whatnot, but there's also programs for that.

One less common, yet essential, thing I haven't gotten a specific response on yet, is converting word docs to PDFs with searchable text. Not sure if you know things about that, but it popped into my head while responding here so hopefully someone who sees this knows something.

And, a generic thank you to everyone who has responded, this has all been very helpful. Even if I don't respond to you specifically, I appreciate it.