The problem with a world where everyone has a gun is that you are inherently saying I trust my neighbor more than the government.
I get the position of people when they say government enroaches on rights, where government isn't necessarily trustworthy. I'm sympathetic. But that doesn't mean that I trust my neighbor more.
When you give everyone in your town a weapon, you're basically saying: I trust that none of you guys are insane, that none of you are trigger happy, that all of you are responsible.
To me you're putting an immense faith in humanity, and I just don't see where one can justify that kind of faith.
Imagine you are in a starbucks where everyone is packing heat.
You are trusting that one guy isnt going to shoot you in the back of the head and steal your gun while you pay for coffee. Or the random dude open carrying the AR-15--You are trusting he isnt going to lift it up and use it.
Or that ex-cop in a movie theater---You are trusting he isn't going to shoot you if you're making noise during some movie previews and out of anger you throw a piece of popcorn at him.
Sorry to say that last bit of implicit trust didn't work out too well.
Oh come now. When you cross the street, you're trusting that the drivers nearby won't suddenly accelerate and slam right into you.
When you drive, you're trusting that the fellow behind you will brake when you brake. You're trusting that people won't suddenly swerve right into your car. And so on and so forth.
Should you not be able to drive unless you go through a battery of psychological tests and have been determined by a therapist that you don't have an anger issue and won't commit road rage?
What about drivers? Why the hell do we let so many people who are clearly piss-poor drivers drive? Do we trust that they can drive competently simply because they passed the test? That's bull***** right?
I mean, gun owners need to take a couple courses in gun safety and jump through a bunch of hoops in most states to get the license to own a gun. Yet y'all seem to think that people will become trigger-happy maniacs who'll break the law at the slightest provocation.
Yes you are trusting that the drivers wont suddenly accelerate and kill you. You are absolutely 100% correct.
But they are required by law to have insurance. They take a driver's license test. While driving they are subject to numerous traffic laws on how they can use their car. If they infract too many times, they will lose their licenses. We test their vision as well. If they have nightblindness, they are forbidden to drive at night time. If you lend you car to someone else, you can be sued for the damages they commit. There are laws against drink and driving. Finally you literally have a group of people hired for the sole purpose of policing whether you are using said car within the bounds of the license--traffic cops.
the point is as you say. If drivers are so bad, why do we let them drive? Perhaps we should subject them to a litany of regulation and licensure?
And that's exactly what I'm saying. Sure why not? Why not make gun owners go through the hoops they do for driving? I'm fine with that position. But Im guessing most gun owners are not.
I'm always bothered by the concept that if everyone owned guns, somehow crime would be lessened.
It's one thing for lots of people in rural areas to own guns. I'm all for that. You live in some place in this country and the outdoors is a legitimate threat.
It's another thing for random people in the suburbs or on college campuses to own guns. Not even police officers, who are trained and retrained regularly, always use their firearms appropriately. Why is arming joe schmoe a better solution? It always presumes the perfect scenario when you've got 'the drop' on someone, but that's rarely ever going to happen. And in most scenarios where you would use it, it's almost always better to let yourself be stolen from than risk death in a gun fight.
Instead of the peaceful utopia these people imagine, you get pissing contests that would have stopped at shouting or a fist fight turning into a gun battle.
What they forget about arming everyone is that you're arming everyone. That means every idiot with an ego the size of the great state of Texas would have one too.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-gun, but I think they should stay in the home or in a case until you're at the range - unless you're a police officer or out somewhere animal attacks are a real risk.
The problem with a world where everyone has a gun is that you are inherently saying I trust my neighbor more than the government.
I get the position of people when they say government enroaches on rights, where government isn't necessarily trustworthy. I'm sympathetic. But that doesn't mean that I trust my neighbor more.
When you give everyone in your town a weapon, you're basically saying: I trust that none of you guys are insane, that none of you are trigger happy, that all of you are responsible.
To me you're putting an immense faith in humanity, and I just don't see where one can justify that kind of faith.
Imagine you are in a starbucks where everyone is packing heat.
You are trusting that one guy isnt going to shoot you in the back of the head and steal your gun while you pay for coffee. Or the random dude open carrying the AR-15--You are trusting he isnt going to lift it up and use it.
Or that ex-cop in a movie theater---You are trusting he isn't going to shoot you if you're making noise during some movie previews and out of anger you throw a piece of popcorn at him.
Sorry to say that last bit of implicit trust didn't work out too well.
Not while he's still number one in the polls and not with his opposition that have practically no appeal.
Trump is fanning the flames, he's more popular than ever. In fact at this juncture I would say that it's more likely he will stick around long enough to cause a civil war in the Republican party than simply fade away.
His rhetoric is outright racist. But that is unfortunately what his base wants. There's no two-ways about it. If you spout a bunch of racist crap and you RISE in the polls, it means people actually like your racist views. They want to hear more of it. So what does it he do? He gives them more of it.
The evidence is compelling. We are all witnessing the true face of the Republican party.
Trump didn't start off number one. He earned it through racist rhetoric. His supporters love it.
I don't know why anyone would use it in tournament play or even casual play as it has been completely outclassed.
In other words, thunder spirit is a bit of a pure card.
It is pure in the sense that tournament demand from this is zero. Casual play demand should be zero or near zero.
The only people who might want it are those who collect, or perhaps speculators.
In that sense it is a good gauge of baseline levels of speculation and collectible demand.
I once offered hypothetical to counter the idea that everyone should own a gun.
And the hypothetical was exactly what Magicman657 wrote. If everyone has a gun, what if one guy decides to randomly shoot from afar.
You have a mass panic. The only difference is you have a mass panic of untrained civilians with guns, some of whom will be trigger happy.
Civilians with guns are not a military platoon. They have not trained to work together. Even if some are ex-marines, not all will be. And the ones who are trained aren't trained to work together. You're going to have lots of independent minded individuals who are each going to take the matter into their own hands.
The last time I wrote that hypothetical, it was completely dismissed.
I guess anyone with allergies knows what it means to try everything.
I personally have tried everything, and at long last some things worked for me.
So here's my review of everything
Hypo-Allergenic Pillows: No difference
Hypo-Allergenic Blanket: Positive effect because I realized I would actually breathe in fibers from other blankets. The dark fibers would actually show up when i went to blow my nose
Honey: small Positive difference. 1 tablespoon of raw honey a day helped
Allergy Medicine: Little to no difference. *crom, *cort, zyrtec,
Decongestants: Negative impact. These actually made my allergies worse for some reason as I built an immunity.
Adjust Sleep position: Tremendous and critical impact since my allergies come in a post-nasal drip
Air Purifier: Tremendous and Critical positive impact. I don't know where I would be without it. My air filter is gigantic however.
Showering before bed each night: Tremendous and Critical positive impact. Keep that dust on your body to a minimum.
Not making your bed: I think this helped. I never make my bed anyway. But when I make it in the morning and come back in the evening it feels gross, and its supposed to increase the proliferation of dust mites.
Shaking your pillow, not placing it on the bed again after its fallen off: Strong Positive.
Keeping windows closed at all times. No difference one way or another for me. Some allergy doctors recommended. But notably Im not allergic to pollen.
Keeping your room clean at all times: positive impact
Vacuuming frequently: positive impact
Nasal Strips: Critical Positive Impact. On the same level as the air purifier.
I hope these suggestions help. Good luck to a fellow sufferer.
That may sound funny, but it's so common, it's basic human nature. Here's a challenge I offer to you that's even MORE interesting. I guarantee that if you agree with everything the feminist said, and spent a great deal of time thinking of real and genuine solutions to her problems, and went to discuss your solutions to the problems and challenges of feminism at length, she still wouldn't listen to you.
In other words, I guarantee that if you are on the same side as the feminist, she still wont listen.
That is human nature.
That's a bit far, I think. It entirely depends on the person you're talking to.
And there is a major difference between not listening and not agreeing. No one has to agree with one another, and as I mentioned in a previous post sometimes people are simply tired of arguing about it.
You might think it's a bit far. But from my experience, it is rare that someone will offer you the engagement of their mind--regardless of whether or not you are on "their side"
Thinking is hard for people.
You point a difference between not listening and not agreeing. Yes there is a difference, but let me unify both of them with common ground: Dismissal of your points.
I think people by and large, are so unwilling to listen to anyone, so unwilling to offer their brain cells to deliberate on what the other party has to say, that they will simply dismiss you the vast majority of the time.
In the case of feminism, dismissal may come in the form of: you're just a man so you can't understand what I'm saying.
But in religion, dismissal may come in the form of declaring someone a heretic. In other environments dismissal comes in the form of declaring someone as socially unacceptable, undesirable, or even a bad person.
Not even Einstein could get people to listen to his theories until Max Planck advocated for him.
David Hilbert, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time dismissed Ramunjan. It wasn't until his papers arrived at the doorsteps of DH hardy (of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium) that Ramunajan was "discovered"
The story of humanity time and time again is that of an abject unwillingness to listen to what the other person has to say unless there is a specific reason to. You might refine it and break it down into listening vs agreeing. But why bother? There's a common thread of consistent human behavior that unites all this and its dismissal.
I think bigheartmagic definitely sounded pretty rude in the exchange. But I will say something in the defense of ebay sellers because I occasionally sells cards on ebay.
There's just no winning on the condition front. I've offered high res scans of my cards and people still complain ask for a partial discount after they already have my cards.
It's incredibly frustrating as a seller because there is little more I can do than offer a scan and let the scan speak for itself.
One thing that really highlights this issue is that we have had instances here on MTGsalvation where 10 people will opine on the condition of a card in a thread, and you literally get 7 different answers.
[Not unless you have a way to simultaneous teach the whole human race empathy and increase their intelligence to the point where they don't need to abstract complex problems into perceived simple ones.
Seems rough. I would he happy with a solution to take people off their defensive stance they assume once you start to question their beliefs. Like "you know, feminism has accomplished many things, but I believe they are not right about this in partic..."
*gets interrupted* "You know nothing Jon Snow, just stay quiet in your place because we are right".
I think Jay is right. You're really making a big deal out of something that is intrinsic to human nature--a lack of willingness to listen.
There's no shortage of that in any field.
It's easy to get sucked into what they're saying "you can't understand it because you're not a woman...etc"
But don't get misdirected by it. That's rarely the actual underlying issue.
Other ideologies have their own equivalents of this (people unwilling to listen). Hell my own father won't listen to me when I offer him suggestions. He has a tendency to panic: someone is going to break into my house, ISIS makes a threat against D.C. I actually offer genuine and real solutions to preparedness against disaster, but he won't take a single concrete step, opting instead of stew in a state of fear.
That may sound funny, but it's so common, it's basic human nature. Here's a challenge I offer to you that's even MORE interesting. I guarantee that if you agree with everything the feminist said, and spent a great deal of time thinking of real and genuine solutions to her problems, and went to discuss your solutions to the problems and challenges of feminism at length, she still wouldn't listen to you.
In other words, I guarantee that if you are on the same side as the feminist, she still wont listen.
Quirkiness - You're overthinking this. Thinking about what is to come in a relationship is going to ruin what you already have.
Enjoy what you have, and try to take things as they come. Becoming neurotic about it is only going to strain the relationship and any potential future friendship. It's really important that you don't confuse what you think should happen with what actually has to happen. I'm actually sad for you guys that you didn't get more time together because of the artificial constraints you put on the potential relationship. It sounds like you really care about her, and the reality is that you'll regret what you didn't do more than what you did.
You should definitely talk to your girlfriend about these concerns, see what she says. Don't discount a long-distance relationship, my wife and I spent a total off three of the twelve years we've been together across the country from one another. It's never fun, but if she's as great as you think she is, she'd be worth it. Skype and Facetime have made the distance a lot less of a problem in recent years, too. We just kept a Skype call open so we could talk whenever. It would have been the worst mistake of my life if we didn't even try when she moved away, and a lot of couples break-up because it's what they believe has to happen instead of just following how they feel.
I'm not saying follow her across the country blindly. I'm saying give your relationship a chance, because breaking up in your head now to save yourself pain later never works, you're still hurt later and you've ruined the time you'd have together now. There is no timeframe on when the break-up/marriage has to happen. My wife and I dated for nine years before we got married. It worked because we loved one another, and while the distance, lack of money or inability to move forward with marriage was rough, it was ultimately worth it because I didn't break up with my best friend just because things got hard. This was also the third time my wife and I dated - a break-up doesn't have to be the end forever, sometimes it just means that one or both of you needs time to mature before trying again.
If neither of you think you're ready for a long distance relationship, talk about it. If the answer is 'I need someone nearby', 'it's too much work' or 'I don't think I could stay faithful', that's one thing. If the answer boils down to 'I'll miss you too much and I think it'll just be painful', that's a very different thing.
Thanks. This is very reassuring. I think the part that makes this hardest at the moment is that I don't really know much about relationships and how they work, so I don't know when the right time to raise concerns are and when to just let things go. You suggested bringing up my concerns, is there a good time to do this sort of thing? Is this many months out too early? I don't want to create a problem if there isn't one.
I think my sense of caution works against me in these cases
I'm actually going to go against the grain of what Jay and Sunforged are saying and say don't bring it up with her, at least not until you've worked it out with yourself a little more.
I think that imposing the need to see the entire future through before you can accept the present is a really extreme position. It's too cautious an approach.
Focus more on the present-about how you can make what you have with her great. Live in the moment, but be mindful of the future.
I think at this time, you're more the opposite. You live in the future, and are merely mindful of the moment. When you're thinking about breaking up with her in anticipation that it might end up being long distance, it means your decision making of today is based in the future. The fact that you are in a relationship with her now is not that consequential, something you are merely mindful of.
The reason my advice is don't bring it up with her just yet, is because I think you should give yourself some time to evaluate how you evaluate things. Take some time and introspect if being so cautious is prudent.
The problem with an overly cautious mindset is that the overly cautious tend to overweigh what they could lose, and not value sufficiently what they could gain.
That's the approach I took in my 20s, and it's honestly one of my biggest regrets now in my 30s. I didn't lose much in my 20s. But in all honesty, I didn't have much to lose in my 20s. Now I feel like I have "lost out" in the sense that I didn't gain enough. I know we're moving past the relationship dimension of the advice, but you've mentioned several times now your cautious nature.
Of course if it remains a concern of yours in your relationship bring it up with her. Talk things through. But give yourself some time to stew on your own mental framework.
Just go with the flow. I'm assuming since you are both undergrad seniors you are 22-23ish.
There are good reasons to break up of course. But I don't think that being unable to see the road all the way until marriage is a good filter to impose on opportunities in front of you.
You say you have never been in a relationship more than a week? That's all the more reason to go with the flow for now and use it as an opportunity to grow emotionally. Learn about yourself and how you are in a relationship. I guarantee you will end up surprising yourself.
Wouldn't it Just Be Modern?
The most common retort I've heard regarding No Reserved List Legacy is "wouldn't it just be Modern?" The answer is a resounding no. While manabases would look like Modern, the cards and decks would look much more like Legacy. We have Brainstorm, Wasteland, Force of Will, Daze, Cabal Therapy, Pyroblast, Flusterstorm, Lotus Petal, Rishadan Port, Counterspell, Crop Rotation, and many others. We would still be able to lock people out of the game with Sensei's Divining Top and Counterbalance, cascade into Ancestral Vision, Invigorate an Inkmoth Nexus, and Tendrils of Agony for 20 damage. These cards are what ensures No Reserved List Legacy looks much more like Legacy than Modern.
The reason why none of us took that seriously is because we saw it as "what's the point?"
So his idea is = Modern + 20 new cards.
The solution is completely untested. There's no proof it would be fun. People know and love legacy.
People know and love Modern. even EDH had to prove itself as a fun format before being adopted by Wizards as Commander.
But what's the point of this Modern + 20, or legacy - 6.83%? Is it going to be fun? It's nothing more than a weak suggestion to me.
Why don't we just play legacy pauper? Why don't we just play Over-Extended (remember that suggestion that was floating around pre-modern? Mercadian Masques - Current)
These are just suggestions out of the blue, ideas without a convincing backup. Of course the magic community is going to look at them like "meh..."
So what if Legacy - Reserve list isn't exactly modern. That's not the point. The point is why is that "not modern format" idea any good.
I play Legacy. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see it grow more popular. But taking away so many iconic cards from it changes it into something else altogether.
When your suggestion is something weird and new, I'm not going to be gung ho about it unless I see a reason to be.
The articles reasons:
1. Not modern.
2. Cheaper "legacy"
aren't affirmative reasons of why the actual substance of the format would be any good.
It's like I want a shiny new present for christmas. you tell me the gift wrap is nicer. You tell me the box is lighter and more managable. That's great! But do I still want what's inside?
Let's take the premise of the guy's article: Reserve List cards occupy a very small portion of the format. To quote the guy Exactly: a whopping 6.83% of the format.
But that figure cuts the other way. If the reserve list only occupies 6.83% of the format of legacy, why not just keep it?
Wizards already has a format for non-reserve list cards. It's called Modern.
Yes you are trusting that the drivers wont suddenly accelerate and kill you. You are absolutely 100% correct.
But they are required by law to have insurance. They take a driver's license test. While driving they are subject to numerous traffic laws on how they can use their car. If they infract too many times, they will lose their licenses. We test their vision as well. If they have nightblindness, they are forbidden to drive at night time. If you lend you car to someone else, you can be sued for the damages they commit. There are laws against drink and driving. Finally you literally have a group of people hired for the sole purpose of policing whether you are using said car within the bounds of the license--traffic cops.
the point is as you say. If drivers are so bad, why do we let them drive? Perhaps we should subject them to a litany of regulation and licensure?
And that's exactly what I'm saying. Sure why not? Why not make gun owners go through the hoops they do for driving? I'm fine with that position. But Im guessing most gun owners are not.
The problem with a world where everyone has a gun is that you are inherently saying I trust my neighbor more than the government.
I get the position of people when they say government enroaches on rights, where government isn't necessarily trustworthy. I'm sympathetic. But that doesn't mean that I trust my neighbor more.
When you give everyone in your town a weapon, you're basically saying: I trust that none of you guys are insane, that none of you are trigger happy, that all of you are responsible.
To me you're putting an immense faith in humanity, and I just don't see where one can justify that kind of faith.
Imagine you are in a starbucks where everyone is packing heat.
You are trusting that one guy isnt going to shoot you in the back of the head and steal your gun while you pay for coffee. Or the random dude open carrying the AR-15--You are trusting he isnt going to lift it up and use it.
Or that ex-cop in a movie theater---You are trusting he isn't going to shoot you if you're making noise during some movie previews and out of anger you throw a piece of popcorn at him.
Sorry to say that last bit of implicit trust didn't work out too well.
I recently started picking up some knives for bushcraft and survival. These things are amazing.
TOPS BOB (brothers of bushcraft)
TOPS Tahoma Field Knife
Ontario AFSK (Air Force Survival Knife)
All knives are really well made and sturdy as hell.
Not while he's still number one in the polls and not with his opposition that have practically no appeal.
Trump is fanning the flames, he's more popular than ever. In fact at this juncture I would say that it's more likely he will stick around long enough to cause a civil war in the Republican party than simply fade away.
His rhetoric is outright racist. But that is unfortunately what his base wants. There's no two-ways about it. If you spout a bunch of racist crap and you RISE in the polls, it means people actually like your racist views. They want to hear more of it. So what does it he do? He gives them more of it.
The evidence is compelling. We are all witnessing the true face of the Republican party.
Trump didn't start off number one. He earned it through racist rhetoric. His supporters love it.
I don't know why anyone would use it in tournament play or even casual play as it has been completely outclassed.
In other words, thunder spirit is a bit of a pure card.
It is pure in the sense that tournament demand from this is zero. Casual play demand should be zero or near zero.
The only people who might want it are those who collect, or perhaps speculators.
In that sense it is a good gauge of baseline levels of speculation and collectible demand.
And the hypothetical was exactly what Magicman657 wrote. If everyone has a gun, what if one guy decides to randomly shoot from afar.
You have a mass panic. The only difference is you have a mass panic of untrained civilians with guns, some of whom will be trigger happy.
Civilians with guns are not a military platoon. They have not trained to work together. Even if some are ex-marines, not all will be. And the ones who are trained aren't trained to work together. You're going to have lots of independent minded individuals who are each going to take the matter into their own hands.
The last time I wrote that hypothetical, it was completely dismissed.
I personally have tried everything, and at long last some things worked for me.
So here's my review of everything
Hypo-Allergenic Pillows: No difference
Hypo-Allergenic Blanket: Positive effect because I realized I would actually breathe in fibers from other blankets. The dark fibers would actually show up when i went to blow my nose
Honey: small Positive difference. 1 tablespoon of raw honey a day helped
Allergy Medicine: Little to no difference. *crom, *cort, zyrtec,
Decongestants: Negative impact. These actually made my allergies worse for some reason as I built an immunity.
Adjust Sleep position: Tremendous and critical impact since my allergies come in a post-nasal drip
Air Purifier: Tremendous and Critical positive impact. I don't know where I would be without it. My air filter is gigantic however.
Showering before bed each night: Tremendous and Critical positive impact. Keep that dust on your body to a minimum.
Not making your bed: I think this helped. I never make my bed anyway. But when I make it in the morning and come back in the evening it feels gross, and its supposed to increase the proliferation of dust mites.
Shaking your pillow, not placing it on the bed again after its fallen off: Strong Positive.
Keeping windows closed at all times. No difference one way or another for me. Some allergy doctors recommended. But notably Im not allergic to pollen.
Keeping your room clean at all times: positive impact
Vacuuming frequently: positive impact
Nasal Strips: Critical Positive Impact. On the same level as the air purifier.
I hope these suggestions help. Good luck to a fellow sufferer.
You might think it's a bit far. But from my experience, it is rare that someone will offer you the engagement of their mind--regardless of whether or not you are on "their side"
Thinking is hard for people.
You point a difference between not listening and not agreeing. Yes there is a difference, but let me unify both of them with common ground: Dismissal of your points.
I think people by and large, are so unwilling to listen to anyone, so unwilling to offer their brain cells to deliberate on what the other party has to say, that they will simply dismiss you the vast majority of the time.
In the case of feminism, dismissal may come in the form of: you're just a man so you can't understand what I'm saying.
But in religion, dismissal may come in the form of declaring someone a heretic. In other environments dismissal comes in the form of declaring someone as socially unacceptable, undesirable, or even a bad person.
Not even Einstein could get people to listen to his theories until Max Planck advocated for him.
David Hilbert, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time dismissed Ramunjan. It wasn't until his papers arrived at the doorsteps of DH hardy (of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium) that Ramunajan was "discovered"
The story of humanity time and time again is that of an abject unwillingness to listen to what the other person has to say unless there is a specific reason to. You might refine it and break it down into listening vs agreeing. But why bother? There's a common thread of consistent human behavior that unites all this and its dismissal.
I think bigheartmagic definitely sounded pretty rude in the exchange. But I will say something in the defense of ebay sellers because I occasionally sells cards on ebay.
There's just no winning on the condition front. I've offered high res scans of my cards and people still complain ask for a partial discount after they already have my cards.
It's incredibly frustrating as a seller because there is little more I can do than offer a scan and let the scan speak for itself.
One thing that really highlights this issue is that we have had instances here on MTGsalvation where 10 people will opine on the condition of a card in a thread, and you literally get 7 different answers.
I think Jay is right. You're really making a big deal out of something that is intrinsic to human nature--a lack of willingness to listen.
There's no shortage of that in any field.
It's easy to get sucked into what they're saying "you can't understand it because you're not a woman...etc"
But don't get misdirected by it. That's rarely the actual underlying issue.
Other ideologies have their own equivalents of this (people unwilling to listen). Hell my own father won't listen to me when I offer him suggestions. He has a tendency to panic: someone is going to break into my house, ISIS makes a threat against D.C. I actually offer genuine and real solutions to preparedness against disaster, but he won't take a single concrete step, opting instead of stew in a state of fear.
That may sound funny, but it's so common, it's basic human nature. Here's a challenge I offer to you that's even MORE interesting. I guarantee that if you agree with everything the feminist said, and spent a great deal of time thinking of real and genuine solutions to her problems, and went to discuss your solutions to the problems and challenges of feminism at length, she still wouldn't listen to you.
In other words, I guarantee that if you are on the same side as the feminist, she still wont listen.
That is human nature.
I'm actually going to go against the grain of what Jay and Sunforged are saying and say don't bring it up with her, at least not until you've worked it out with yourself a little more.
I think that imposing the need to see the entire future through before you can accept the present is a really extreme position. It's too cautious an approach.
Focus more on the present-about how you can make what you have with her great. Live in the moment, but be mindful of the future.
I think at this time, you're more the opposite. You live in the future, and are merely mindful of the moment. When you're thinking about breaking up with her in anticipation that it might end up being long distance, it means your decision making of today is based in the future. The fact that you are in a relationship with her now is not that consequential, something you are merely mindful of.
The reason my advice is don't bring it up with her just yet, is because I think you should give yourself some time to evaluate how you evaluate things. Take some time and introspect if being so cautious is prudent.
The problem with an overly cautious mindset is that the overly cautious tend to overweigh what they could lose, and not value sufficiently what they could gain.
That's the approach I took in my 20s, and it's honestly one of my biggest regrets now in my 30s. I didn't lose much in my 20s. But in all honesty, I didn't have much to lose in my 20s. Now I feel like I have "lost out" in the sense that I didn't gain enough. I know we're moving past the relationship dimension of the advice, but you've mentioned several times now your cautious nature.
Of course if it remains a concern of yours in your relationship bring it up with her. Talk things through. But give yourself some time to stew on your own mental framework.
Just go with the flow. I'm assuming since you are both undergrad seniors you are 22-23ish.
There are good reasons to break up of course. But I don't think that being unable to see the road all the way until marriage is a good filter to impose on opportunities in front of you.
You say you have never been in a relationship more than a week? That's all the more reason to go with the flow for now and use it as an opportunity to grow emotionally. Learn about yourself and how you are in a relationship. I guarantee you will end up surprising yourself.
The reason why none of us took that seriously is because we saw it as "what's the point?"
So his idea is = Modern + 20 new cards.
The solution is completely untested. There's no proof it would be fun. People know and love legacy.
People know and love Modern. even EDH had to prove itself as a fun format before being adopted by Wizards as Commander.
But what's the point of this Modern + 20, or legacy - 6.83%? Is it going to be fun? It's nothing more than a weak suggestion to me.
Why don't we just play legacy pauper? Why don't we just play Over-Extended (remember that suggestion that was floating around pre-modern? Mercadian Masques - Current)
These are just suggestions out of the blue, ideas without a convincing backup. Of course the magic community is going to look at them like "meh..."
So what if Legacy - Reserve list isn't exactly modern. That's not the point. The point is why is that "not modern format" idea any good.
I play Legacy. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see it grow more popular. But taking away so many iconic cards from it changes it into something else altogether.
When your suggestion is something weird and new, I'm not going to be gung ho about it unless I see a reason to be.
The articles reasons:
1. Not modern.
2. Cheaper "legacy"
aren't affirmative reasons of why the actual substance of the format would be any good.
It's like I want a shiny new present for christmas. you tell me the gift wrap is nicer. You tell me the box is lighter and more managable. That's great! But do I still want what's inside?
Let's take the premise of the guy's article: Reserve List cards occupy a very small portion of the format. To quote the guy Exactly: a whopping 6.83% of the format.
But that figure cuts the other way. If the reserve list only occupies 6.83% of the format of legacy, why not just keep it?
Wizards already has a format for non-reserve list cards. It's called Modern.