Talking to AI can provide a form of interaction, but whether it counts as “socializing” depends on your definition of socializing. Socializing typically involves interacting with other people in a social context. While AI can simulate conversation and engage in discussions, it lacks the emotional and interpersonal aspects that often characterize human social interactions.
AI interactions are typically one-sided, with the AI providing responses based on programmed algorithms and patterns in the data it was trained on, without genuine emotions, empathy, or understanding. Socializing with other humans involves a mutual exchange of thoughts, emotions, and information that AI cannot fully replicate.
So, while talking to AI can be an engaging and informative experience, it may not fully replace or replicate the complexity and richness of human social interactions. It can be a form of communication or conversation, but it’s not the same as socializing with other people.
If a deck lets you win on turn 1 6.25% of the time, and completely flop over 50% of the time, you’ll lose often enough that your deck isn’t going to win any tournaments. That’s not an oppressive force in a metagame.
But if even that is too much for certain players, they can just avoid Vintage. There are non-eternal formats with no t1 wins. Pioneer, Standard etc have no such t1 wins.
For the uninitiated, the likelihood of being able to pull off a 4-card combo on turn 1 is very small, even in unrestricted formats. Decks that rely on this interaction either include ways to win on later turns or are unreliable.
Back in the day decks had a 40 card minimum and no max copies of cards. There were decks that were just mountains and lightning bolts. So getting a combo like this out wasn’t completely unheard of.
Nowadays, combos need lots of drawing and fishing to hit in the first couple turns.
Confirm, and I am guilty of having owned, and currently owning, functional decks that basically just boil down to mountains and lightning bolts. The “new” (decades old) rules forced me to diversify a bit, but Fallen Empires brought us the gift of the Goblin Grenade, so it’s all gravy for me. Four goblins and four Goblin Grenades is a win, even if you don’t attack with any of the goblins. You can spice things up in the interim with Lightning Bolts if you like.
The typical variant I’ve seen is using a bunch more Moxes and Lotuses and so forth to play Ancestral Recalls/Timetwisters or Timewalks or similar to either pull the right cards from your deck or skip your opponent’s turn until you draw them naturally. And doing such a thing nowadays is… expensive.
Also, if you shoot your load and your opponent has a way to counter your fireball, now you’re standing there with your pants down around your ankles and 1 health. Ready to be done in by a single goblin, or possibly a stiff breeze.
Even so, in modern formats where Black Lotus, Moxes, and Channel are not outright banned you can only have one of each per deck anyhow. So the notion of having 4 of each to pad your deck out to the minimum 60 cards likewise goes out the window. Still, having this spread available is sort of like having a nuke in your suitcase. You’re never actually going to set it off, but it’s nice sometimes to let everyone around you know that you could if you really felt like it.
I also have an Enduring Renewal based infinite mana deck that is similarly impractical, but no less spectacular when you actually manage to pull off its core combo. Your ability to put your opponent into the negatives – or yourself into an insurmountably gargantuan health pool via Alabaster Potions – is limited only by your opponent’s patience and lack of conceding on the spot in disgust as you shuffle your Ornithopter back and forth and back and forth…
I have a more straighforward lightning bolt/shock/goblin grenade deck that is less exotic, but considerably more reliable. The explosions it makes are smaller, but everyone explodes sooner or later.
I’d disagree. I keep up with both MtG and YGO (MtG as a game I like and YGO as a horrified observer), and the two games are not even close to equivalent here.
In YGO’s one official format, the oft-quoted statistic is that games don’t usually last more than 3 turns - those 3 turns being half the length of how MtG usually measures turns - Starting Player, Non-Starting Player, Starting Player, game. The interaction relies on your opponent having the right disruptive tool to slow down your combo.
For MtG, the only formats that are really like that are Legacy and Vintage, formats that are generally incredibly expensive to play in paper and definitely not where new players are gonna start. Even Modern, the next oldest and thus powerful format, has games that typically last at absolute least 3 turns for each player (twice the YGO standard) and most of the time last much longer. Then Standard, where new players are expected to start, has so much less combo “I win the game now” potential specifically because it’s a bad feeling for new players and the creators don’t want the format to be that fast. I can’t find a great source on it, but winning a Standard game anytime before turn 5 is notable, and usually means your opponent didn’t do anything.
Sure, it’s 3 turns, but each turn lasts 10x as long as in Magic, so it evens out. Also, it’s a pretty big exaggeration - the meme is “turn 3 dead”, but you can usually last a couple more and hope to get some kind of out.
OneOrangeBraincell is one of the subreddits I miss the most. Especially since it was very much a place to CELEBRATE their adorable himbo energy rather than criticize/complain about it 😁
Technically, neither of the skills mentioned are necessary for the job of making unreasonable demands and berating workers for exercising their rights 🤷
Completely agreed on the first point, but unfortunately the latter isn’t always the case.
It’s become almost the norm for both individuals and companies to achieve ridiculous levels of success through abusive cunning in spite of a near-total lack of expertise and effort compared to competitors and coworkers.
And, to be fair, successful engineers/whatever rarely want to be in management. They’ve identified they’re great at what they do and happy to continue doing it if the pay is right. A lot end up moving to management because the pay tends to be higher and then not being great and hating it.
Great managers are great at managing people and processes, not necessarily doing the processes. They understand human psychology to inspire, motivate, and bring teams together. That’s a rare find because that’s largely misunderstood, unfortunately. This is super frustrating because there are plenty of great books/seminars on how to identify and be great managers. The information is out there.
It’s our modern capitalist world that says you should spend every waking moment on productivity, regardless if it’s actually valuable. Be willing to spend your best moments making yourself happy, it’s how we are meant to live. We’re not machines.
Capitalism sees us more as consumers than workers. Capitalism doesn’t care who owns the means of production. We need as a society to stop hopping on the consumer bandwagon and realign the system towards what is really valuable. Family, health, happiness, etc.
6 months? Don’t let the demon fool you, evil beings such as them live for centuries, it’s probably about 75 years old. They spend the first century of their life honing their craft, and then unleash it upon the world. Prepare yourself for your day of reckoning.
I can respect a manager that can’t do these things, if they can delegate and choreograph people well. Sometimes being a good manager simply requires one to be able to corral and give support where needed. They can admit to not being capable of things and respect their reports that do those things well.
If they can’t do anything and just take a top down, demanding approach all the time, they’re useless.
comicstrips
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.