TehPers

joined 2 years ago
[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 1 points 6 hours ago

This is a really neat card for aristocrat decks. I love the design, and fits with other cheap orzhov removal spells with downsides (anguished unmaking is the classic example, but we've seen cards like Rite of Oblivion that are similar in concept).

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

the highest possible value for a product

How do you calculate this?

the amount of people who has the product - the amount of people who want the product

As demand increases, the value increases, but at some point when demand exceeds supply (which is common), the opposite happens: the magnitude of the value starts to decrease (though that value is now negative).

For example, two sellers sell a product, and four people want it. Let maximum value be v_m. Value is calculated to be v_m / (2 - 4) = -v_m / 2. If two more people want it suddenly (so 6 now), it becomes v_m / (2 - 6) = -v_m / 4, which has a lower magnitude despite the higher demand and static supply. This is contrary to how supply and demand actually work, where value generally increases as demand increases (if supply remains static).

Maybe value means something differently to me than it does to you though. Ideally supply would always equal demand (which makes your denominator 0, breaking the equation entirely since that would be undefined), but that would be really difficult to control.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 2 points 7 hours ago

Not really, no. Assuming that all currencies are going down the toilet and your software is supposed to sidestep it in some manner, then all you're really introducing is basically an exchange for a new system of currencies. You end up in the same place in the theoretical future where barter is the main method of trading.

On the other hand, if you're doing this just for fun, then there's nothing wrong with that, and introducing it that way might get you a better reception. But this is not the future of trade, just a niche tool that some might find useful, which is perfectly fine.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 3 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

This would still be true in a barter system.

You give your bank 2 chickens. Your account now has 2 chickens. To save people the effort of transporting chickens, you give someone an IOU (bank note) equivalent to 2 chickens, and they do the same for your gas or whatever. Now you have a system of currency and a method of exchanging each currency (chickens, gas, cows, etc) for each other.

Software is created on this system of currency, and defines conversion rates between each currency. Software defines the value of products relative to each other now.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 0 points 1 day ago

Depends on what you need to match. Regex is just another programming language. It's more declarative than traditional languages though (it's basically pattern matching).

Pattern matching is something I already do a lot of in my code, so regexes aren't that much different.

Regardless, the syntax sucks. It takes some time to get familiar with it, but once you get past that, it's really simple.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

To me, it seems like this article is overemphasizing code duplication as problematic. If multiple types of searches use some of the same fields, it's okay to just copy them to each search type that uses them. This also allows each search type to be independently updated later on to add additional fields or deprecate existing fields without affecting other search types.

Fields that should always exist together should probably be moved to a struct containing those fields, if there's some concept that encapsulates them. Paging fields, for example, that exist only on two of three variants can just live in their own struct, and those two variants can have fields of that type.

Code duplication is only really problematic when all duplicates need to be updated together every time. That does not seem to be the case here.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 3 points 2 days ago

You don't even need to do things with the counters. The decks that want this land can station it really quickly just by doing what they already want to do. In those decks, this is functionally just Gaea's Cradle behind the city's blessing.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Depends on the format. In commander, this probably makes the 99, but in other constructed formats, Slivers aren't really known for their longevity.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 3 points 2 days ago

It can still be used to cast spells from exile, like permanents with adventures or warped spells.

But yeah, it seems designed to not be broken like Urza's ability was.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 3 points 2 days ago

Agreed. This card is insane. It'll definitely support older formats than just standard.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 2 points 3 days ago

.NET is more of a runtime and SDKs than a framework, despite the terrible naming of .NET Framework (which is now an obsolete runtime anyway, new naming is just .NET).

ASP.NET Core (which also is named after the now obsolete .NET Core runtime hilariously) would be closer to the other listed frameworks.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 4 points 3 days ago

Similar to Justice Strike. That card saw some play in standard, but it was 2 mana. Not sure if it'll be worth it for 3 mana, even in mono red, but there might just not be a better mono red removal spell for big creatures at this cost.

view more: next ›