/u/DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca is right on the money. Mana paces the game, so anything that can break that is super good. In an otherwise even matchup, if one player has a Lotus while the other doesn't, that can easily make the game. It's not going to win the game in and of itself, but it's a huge enabler to play the thing that will win you the game, before your opponent can reasonably do anything about it.

On top of that, it's literally good in all decks. It's been banned in every format besides Vintage, where it's restricted to one (and not including casual/fan formats). It had to be banned partly for power reasons, but also because it makes deck-building less diverse. There's no deck that wouldn't want a Lotus if it could have one, much less four.

It's also part of the Reserved List. After WotC overprinted cards, they essentially promised not to reprint certain ones. I think it's a dumb decision, but they've annoyingly stuck to it (and players are worse off for it). Black Lotus is on that list. And it was alreadly limited in printings, because it was a rare card, and a bit of a design mistake.

It's also simply an iconic card. Despite being a design mistake, it's a major part of Magic history, and gets referenced all the time. To some extent, it's famous for being famous. That makes it the biggest prize for collectors.

So, all this together, it has an incredibly high demand, a very limited supply, and no indication of a reprint anytime soon.

So I printed off a proxy at a professional card printer for 30¢. :)

Happy to help! It's worked great for me, and a buddy of mine also liked it, so I'm fairly sure it's not a fluke. :P

Also, my ratios were by weight. That's only relevant because that's what makes me push up against the maximum solubility. If you go volumetric, you have more wiggle room. The second point will be less relevant, but it's still faster and easier than heating it in a pot, IMO.

Oh, and as a bonus: you don't need to wait for the syrup to cool down.

If you're going to make simple syrup, use a stick blender.

Firstly, it's easier and faster than heating the sugar and water in a pot, which is the most popular method.

Secondly, you don't lose any significant amount of water to evaporation. That's not a big deal if you make 1:1 simple syrup, but if you're going 2:1 (which I prefer), you're already very close to the maximum solubility of sugar in water at room temperature. Losing a few grams of water can make it supersaturated, which leads to sugar crystals falling out of solution over time. Not a big deal, but a little annoying.

If you give it a try, bear in mind that you're going to get a cloudy syrup at first. That's totally normal, and it's not undissolved sugar, it's just air bubbles. They'll float out over time.

I hate how relevant this question is in so many situations.

"If you'd rather play D&D, are you willing to DM while I recharge?"

In my group, yes. :| We actually have plenty of players willing to run games.

That said, they're also willing to try out new games, so it all works out just fine. :)

I do think the problem is rooted in Joss Whedon, or rather, movie studios looking at Avengers and thinking, "This, all the time." People got tired of Joss Whedon himself (among other problems with him), much less more corporate, soulless imitations.

I just found it by chance a couple years ago, and its entered regular Halloween rotation. It's also a very silly movie at times, but it has something to say. If it weren't played straight, it would undercut the whole thing.

I can't help but imagine that, if they tried to make it today, it'd just be noted to death by the studio. "Say less, quip more." Then you'd get a ho-hum vampire action-comedy with a whiff that it was something better in a previous draft... like Renfield.

Daybreakers.

First, it's a mid-budget movie, and Hollywood doesn't make much of those nowadays.

Secondly, it commits to a wild premise: vampires become the dominant life form in the world. It's fun, but the actors play it straight. If the tried to do that now, it'd be full of quips and winking at the audience rather than committing to the bit.

This is especially true with generic medicines.

The cheapest I can get Claritin in my nearest supermarket is 50¢—$1.12/pill.

The store brand can be as low as 7¢—37¢/pill.)

The CostCo version is 2 or 3¢/pill.

All of them are the same. 10mg of loratadine, highly regulated by the FDA.

They can differ with inactive ingredients, so maybe you'd like a syrup or something from a name brand. But it legally has to be the same active ingredients, in the same amounts, in the same forms.

I'd really like to give Monster of the Week a try! I really enjoyed when The Adventure Zone ran it.

Haha, thanks. I just meant that sentence at first blush, I know it's a reasonable position after that. :P

I'm not sure I'd like it, because I "got" Blades in the Dark, but realized it wasn't for me. It does what it does well, but my group and I didn't like so much the "one session, one job" paradigm, and it seemed too abstract at times. I read a comment that said narrative games are like writing with the other players, and it seemed to click. I might just not like that kind of approach, as a matter of personal preference.

But I might like DW2 more, as it incorporates more of a traditional style. That and, to be honest, I might love Blades and other FitD games with some light tweaking. I need to explore!

One near me got into trouble for their "In Trump We Trust" sign, because it violated town codes. It was a BIG ass sign. I never need ice cream so badly I'd put money in a fascist's pocket.

Also... how does anyone look at that sign and not immediately see that it's a cult?

Of course, I think it's undeniable that there's anti-Chinese racism, and it can play into attacks on China, especially from the right. The thing is, my criticisms of China are things that I hate about the US and its allies. It's not that China is some strange, unique evil. On the contrary, they're similar.

In another comment, you talked about how genocide requires mass killings, but I wouldn't limit it to that (nor would the UN). And yes, that makes the US complicit. The genocide of Native Americans didn't stop with murder, but included stealing children to "reeducate" them. The eugenecist movement sterilized women without so much as their knowledge, much less their consent—and they were predominantly Black, Asian, and Native American. The Tuskeegee experiments also left people sterilized, and that's just part of how it ruined and ended lives. Obviously we've seen "Islamic extremism" used as an excuse to demonize Muslims in general, ignore material conditions that lead to violent resistance, and justify brutal repression.

We've already talked about evidence, and I don't know what to tell you. You also said that you don't trust any citation in the Wikipedia article, so that's cutting out sources I would absolutely lend weight: the UN, the Asspociated Press, Reuters, academic journals... and if your response to the UN report isn't "technically this would mean it's ethnocide," then I don't think we're going to have a productive conversation.

A while back, I read an article by Dara Horn about the failures of Holocaust education, and the rise of antisemitism. One point that really struck a chord with me was that Holocaust education focuses too much on the "They were just like us" angle. Jews weren't oppressed for their similarities, but their differences. To focus on the similarities to conemn their oppression carries with it the implication that, if people are different, it's okay, and the more different they are, the more you can justify hate and oppression.

So imagine my disappointment when I read an article of hers condemning student protests. She repeated the lie about "From the river to the sea (Palestine will be free)" being a genocidal slogan. She juxtaposed it with antisemitic attacks, implying a connection. She denied that it was a genocide, which would of course justify demonstrations. She praised cracking down on student protests in general. She mournfully talked about overlooking Harvard, disappointed that the school she went to was awash in antisemitism, and all I could think was... Harvard is still standing, Gaza is in ruins.

Is the treatment of Uyghurs the same as the treatment of Palestinians? No, not as far as I can tell. It's just that that isn't the threshold. The genocide of Palestinians doesn't only slightly cross the line. And while both antisemitism and sinophobia are undeniably real, have lead to attacks and oppression, and color some of the criticisms of Israel and China, that doesn't represent real criticisms of states, not people. And those criticisms aren't new, they are familiar. It's the banality of evil. It's capitalist empires doing what capitalist empires do.

The point about common ground was to give you a clear opportunity to present your position and intentions. I had my assumptions, but didn't want to unfairly ascribe them to you. It turns out I was right, unfortunately, but as a matter of difference between us, I wanted to address what you actually think, feel, and say. I would appreciate it if you did the same, but you haven't so far.

So to address another position you ascribed to me: I can easily aknowledge that the US is complicit in genocide, war crimes, slavery, and other crimes against humanity, and has been throughout its history. That does not mean the US has a monopoly on evil. That kind of campism is silly.

I've had a remarkably similar conversation to this a while back, except the topic was Palestine, and the other user was a hardcore Zionist. It literally began when I said, word for word, "killing civilians is bad." To paraphrase the rest:

"So it's bad when Hamas kills Israeli civilians?"

"Of course. Is it bad when Israel kills Palestinian civilians?"

Then the same kind of argument followed. Deflections, straw men, selective interpretation and acknowledgement of evidence, personal attacks... the works. It doesn't matter what the protesters say or do, or how many of the protestors are Jews; they're pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic. Any source supporting Israel is valid, anything condemning them is fake news. I was an idiot, I was the one arguing in bad faith... you know. That kind of stuff.

I don't know you, or what's in your heart. I hope that the aggression is coming from discomfort rooted in a sense of doubt, which I can also hope you pursue. You can believe me or not—so far, you haven't—but I really mean it when I say I hope you have a better go of things from here on out. If the nature of this conversation changes, I'm here, but if it doesn't, then it's run its course.

Unfortunately, I can't speak from experience at the table, so it's just that my impression of BW's mechanics seems more optimistic. That said, we can agree on the BITs, because the Artha cycle is the star of the show. I don't know if they're going to incorporate elements of that into DW2e, but it might just be a great direction to go.

Dungeon World was a big flop for us... and I'm excited about the next edition. :P

I think it flopped largely because we were playing it wrong. I know that sounds stupid, and you usually hear that from people making excuses when people don't like their favorite game. What I mean is that we tried to play it like D&D, and while it's clearly trying to bridge the gap between PbtA games and D&D-type games, you have to approach it a bit differently, which we didn't. Maybe I still won't like it, but I want to reevaluate it on its own terms.

I'm also a big fan of Burning Wheel productions. Burning Wheel is my favorite game I've never played, just because there are so many things I find interesting about the system, and I love the presentation. (Still trying to get a group together, though!) If DW2e takes the form of a chunky, digest-sized hardcover, I'd be thrilled.

Yet again.

No, it's not.

My points were twofold. First, to find out if we could find some common ground. Second, to find out if you actually care about sources and evidence, or judge them retroactively based on whether or not you like the conclusions.

The latter makes the conversation a non-starter, because even within a single report, you'll interpret it in different ways. Within the very constrained lens of not containing the word genocide, to you, it ought to be sufficient. When it comes to crimes against humanity, you don't want to talk about it, start attacking, and dismiss it as "a distraction." On the prior point, I hope that your frustration comes from some doubt within you, causing you discomfort. Keep pulling on that thread.

Good luck with everything. I hope things get better going forward.

That's not even remotely what I said, implied, or believe. Would you like to respond to what I did say, or put words in my mouth?

Before going any further, can we at least agree that the treatment of Uyghurs by the government of China rises to the level of crimes against humanity?