Zhalfirin Quest: IIRC, Legendary is a supertype, not a type. You need a second creature on the board and the revealed card must share a creature type with that other creature.
You're right that it's a supertype but note it's "...shares a creature type with a _card_ that shares..." rather than "with a permanent" or "with a creature"-I think it doesn't actually imply that it's something on the battlefield that's being compared with (via the comprehensive rules glossary: "In the text of spells or abilities, the term “card” is used only to refer to a card that’s not on the battlefield or on the stack, such as a creature card in a player’s hand."; though I'd note some old cards previously used "card" (especially but not always in phrases like "card in play") to mean "nontoken permanent" or rarely even just "permanent" (cf. the first few printings of Desert Twister)). Since it doesn't specify any zone I'm not sure if it's even limited to just cards that are present in the current game really (I'm thinking of like Spy Kit, which has the like "has all names of nonlegendary creature cards in addition to its name"i n which "nonlegendary creature cards" is meaning all such cards from the set of cards that exist in the Oracle card reference; not sure if that's totally analogous though)-so it could mean it shares a creature type with any card ever printed that shares a card type with a card named Zhalfirin Quest, i.e. with any creature card in existence including the revealed card itself [EDIT: so any revealed creature card would be put onto the battlefield except Nameless Race or some Shrines (and maybe some other creature-type-less cards I'm forgetting)].
@@GrizonIIyep this is the correct interpretation lol. the card revealed must be a creature card with a creature type that is on at least two creature cards in magic, unless it can be compared to itself in which case it’s just any creature card with a creature type
I barely missed this last night, so I’m happy to see it up already Also, judge here: Zhalfirin quest basically says, after you reveal the top card, “if it’s a creature card, put it onto the battlefield tapped…” because it asked for a creature that shares a creature type with any card that also shares a card type with Zhalfirin Quest. ZQ has one card type: creature, and every single creature card has the potential to share a creature type with other creatures, so basically as long as you reveal a creature card, you put it into play tapped
There are two conditions that make it slightly different. If you hit Nameless Race, it will not proc, as it doesn't share a creature type with any creature card. Secondly, if you hit Zhalfirin Quest with "One with the Stars" or a similar card, it would now only hit creature types that have shown up on Enchantment Creatures or Kindred Enchantments. But yeah, in 99.999% of cases, it's just "if it's a creature".
@@TheKrazyguy75 I would rule that changing the card types of a Zhalfirin Quest *permanent* actually does NOT work the way you described, because the text on Zhalfirin Quest explicitly mentions sharing a card type with a *card* named Zhalfirin Quest. Even if the only Zhalfirin Quest in play is just an Enchantment, the Zhalfirin Quest card still has the card type "creature".
I still remember getting my mind blown by one RoboRosewater card that LRR played with a long time ago. It was a creature called "Remover of Obstacles". It was blue black, had flash, and "when this creature enters the battlefield target creature you don't control can not block this turn. Nothing too unique so far, but it also had Overload. For those who don't remember, Overload is "if you cast this spell for its Overload cost, replace the word 'target' with the word 'each'." So if you cast the card with Overload, every creature you do not control can not block that turn. Here's the thing, Overload has never actually been printed on a creature. It was actually just a very playable and thematic card.
Wait till Postmodern Horizons (the new RRWM set) comes out. It's full of mechanically crazy cards and a lot more balanced than Spiral Chaos (the set which had that) was.
@@wombatgirl997 Currently just the 1, and the second one is nearly done. We've got it to the point where only like 5-6 cards of the 300 get replaced per playtest.
I think overload is one of those keywords like trample where as humans we know how it works on a creature but Magic really doesn't so they'd have to really retemplate it to do that card properly (IIRC Remover of Obstacles also said when it enters OR attacks creatures can't block)
@@gaz-l621 a creature with overload does not need overload to be changed. it just works. replacing "target" with "each" is actually super simple in the mtg rules.
For Zhalfiran Quest, literally the first check is identical to the last. It's any creature with a creature type. Zhalfiran Quest has 1 card type: Creature, so it triggers on any creature card that shares a creature type with any creature card including itself. So the end result is "if it's a creature card that isn't nameless race".
But if you had changed Zhalfiran Quest to an artifact or enchantment somehow, then it could be any creature type on an Enchantment Creature, Artifact Creature or Kindred Artifact/Enchantment. It's a headache, but it can do some stupid tricks.
Zhalfiran Quest is easier to understand if you imagine that it were an enchantment, rather than a creature. Suppose that Zhalfirin Quest had been turned into a noncreature enchantment, such as by One With the Stars (from Theros: Beyond Death). Now, imagine your topdeck is a Spellstutter Sprite, which is a Faerie Creature. There exists a card, Bitterblossom, which shares a creature type (Faerie) with Spellstutter Sprite, and a card type (Enchantment) with the one-with-the-stars-ed Quest. Therefore, you get to put the Sprite into play. However, if your topdeck card is an Arclight Phoenix, you wouldn't get to play it, because no cards currently exist which are both a Phoenix and an Enchantment. However, as printed, Zhalfirin Quest just says "if your top card is a creature, and a creature exists with that creature type, put the top deck into play" which is tautologically true.
I worked at place that had a shift clock in and out go into a spreadsheet, which then calculated average values and spat out a new schedule. We were told that it was AI
Yeah, it's not a different technology - but it is a difference of scale. This generator is trained by CocoaMix in-house on exclusively Magic cards, as opposed to a GPT that's trained on stolen stuff from everywhere on the Internet.
Wait, Hulk of Keld can actually be used to pay additional costs, because you still have to pay those even if you cast the card without paying its mana cost.
So, the mana ability is basically only useful under Trinisphere? That's the only scenario that I can think of that would let you cast something without paying its mana cost and still have to pay mana for it.
3:30 - My interpretation is that this allows any creature with a non-unique creature type, i.e. multiple cards have been printed with that creature type The card type shared is always "Creature"
The RoboRosewater model is technically a Recurring Neural Network trained on a database of Magic cards, so definitionally it *is* generative AI, and it *technically* has the same copyright issues as all other generative AI, although I don't think it carries the ethical problems that something like ChatGPT has, because it is mostly used for fun, not for commercial purposes. (And because there is zero risk of it replacing the real thing anytime soon.) Source: Actually ran the model on my machine for a bit back when it first came around, ages ago. (Not using AI-generated art is a nice decision!)
you can become a card with form of the approach of the second sun, so theoretically there is a scenario where you could cast yourself with something like future sight, but you still wouldn't become a spell because then you leave your library and so you stop being a card?
Would the mana from Hulk of Keld be useable to cast something while there is a Trinisphere in play? I just watched the "Terrible Tribal CEDH" VOD and this interaction came up.
10:57 : “four generic mana to make your land drop for turn” : I’ve seen it claimed that by the rules, if a land card lists a mana cost in the usual area, you don’t actually have to pay that cost? (Presumably: unless the card says you have to?)
From my understanding: Lands are not spells, therefore the option to "cast" one is not a legal action. They operate under their own rules for how they are played. From a practical standpoint, this won't come up because they don't print lands with mana costs. If you wanted to make a card behavior this wat, it would say something like "When enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you pay [cost]"
I argue that if in a game of magic all becomes five then all instances of the word “all” become the number “5”. Kill all creatures becomes kill five creatures. This effect might have to generate an emblem to be functional.
I think the Hulk of Keld, you can at LEAST "wash" the mana with mana doubling effects. It is one of the only uses of that one commander only lotus card in modern afterall...
oh the art they used for These cards were all public domain or human made? cool. i know for quite a while there was tons of art from generative ai being used and discussed. havent been on the discord much lately so idk if they're still doing that
14:18 It doesn't say it needs to be a non-token permanent. If you're representing a token with something... creative... this could lead to some "interactive gameplay".
so for the Probation Warden: I understood it that all instances of All are replaced with 5 Destroy all creatures -> Destroy 5 creatures Which makes it much more instresting build around piece imho
Mostly the level of complexity. Markov chains are fairly simply statistical methods to generate text. You calculate how frequently one token (often words) happens after another and then pick from the most likely next word each time. At a very high level this same description could also be applied to LLMs, but they do a lot more than just that and markov chains are really that simple.
Not much, especially considering they first said "machine learning" before that. Seems to me like a way to soothe the people who hate "AI" but don't know anything about it other than the word they use for it.
@@ArchaicEX The difference is that 1, markov chains are defined based on some source material and don't refine themselves over time (the "learning" part of machine learning), and 2, they are vastly simpler and barely require any processing power. It seems like you don't know much about AI other than the word you use for it.
0:30 : “these are not generative AI” : I think it kind of funny that you feel you need to specify this, especially as it… I mean, what does “generative AI” even mean other than “an ML model generates something in some medium (whether text or an image)” ? Now, these aren’t generated by a LLM , but a smaller language model trained only on MTG cards (AIUI), but, while I think the architecture is probably a LSTM model rather than a transformer, I don’t see why you would see such a difference in architectures as making a fundamental difference. I think the biggest differences are in: 1) the dataset being used to train the model (“all MTG cards” vs “a large fraction of all text found on the internet (including pretty much all MTG cards)”) 2) the size of the models (small vs big) 3) the amount of compute used in training and running the models (small vs big) If you want to make an ethical distinction based on these kinds of differences, go ahead. Quantity has a quality all its own, after all, so that could very well make sense. But, if you don’t want to make a distinction based on scale (or breadth of sources for the training data), I don’t think you have much else to base things off of. The difference in the architectures is pretty much incidental, and imo is implausible as a basis for making a moral distinction.
I kinda agree. I think the main difference is that this is made using a narrowly specialized tool whereas most LLMs are, well, General Purpose. But fundamentally even if this was made using a Markov Chain generator, which is extremely primitive compared to what neural networks do, it would still be fair to call it AI-generated, mostly because "AI" doesn't mean anything (thanks, clueless business buzzword people).
they are just trying to reduce the blowback from an audience they have which is anti ai even though theyve used ai a lot because turns out its not ontologically evil
I miss the days when robo rosewater would generate a mix of actually functional cards with extremely silly power level, and utter word salad that makes no sense grammatically or logically.
Some of the worst RoboRosewater cards to date, absolute F grade. Only a few funny moments in the entire thing, very little in the way of funny rules moments, not even many workable rules moments, just... Very very sad start. I hope the rest of this year's DBFH goes better!
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
Zhalfirin Quest: IIRC, Legendary is a supertype, not a type. You need a second creature on the board and the revealed card must share a creature type with that other creature.
You're right that it's a supertype but note it's "...shares a creature type with a _card_ that shares..." rather than "with a permanent" or "with a creature"-I think it doesn't actually imply that it's something on the battlefield that's being compared with (via the comprehensive rules glossary: "In the text of spells or abilities, the term “card” is used only to refer to a card that’s not on the battlefield or on the stack, such as a creature card in a player’s hand."; though I'd note some old cards previously used "card" (especially but not always in phrases like "card in play") to mean "nontoken permanent" or rarely even just "permanent" (cf. the first few printings of Desert Twister)). Since it doesn't specify any zone I'm not sure if it's even limited to just cards that are present in the current game really (I'm thinking of like Spy Kit, which has the like "has all names of nonlegendary creature cards in addition to its name"i n which "nonlegendary creature cards" is meaning all such cards from the set of cards that exist in the Oracle card reference; not sure if that's totally analogous though)-so it could mean it shares a creature type with any card ever printed that shares a card type with a card named Zhalfirin Quest, i.e. with any creature card in existence including the revealed card itself [EDIT: so any revealed creature card would be put onto the battlefield except Nameless Race or some Shrines (and maybe some other creature-type-less cards I'm forgetting)].
@@GrizonIIyep this is the correct interpretation lol. the card revealed must be a creature card with a creature type that is on at least two creature cards in magic, unless it can be compared to itself in which case it’s just any creature card with a creature type
oh shit forgot about changelings. okay it’s just a creature with a creature type.
@@moxbismuthyeah get cooked any of the Go-Shintai Shrines and Nameless Race.
Yeah the fact that they all forgot that Legendary isn't a card type was killing me here 😂
I barely missed this last night, so I’m happy to see it up already
Also, judge here: Zhalfirin quest basically says, after you reveal the top card, “if it’s a creature card, put it onto the battlefield tapped…” because it asked for a creature that shares a creature type with any card that also shares a card type with Zhalfirin Quest. ZQ has one card type: creature, and every single creature card has the potential to share a creature type with other creatures, so basically as long as you reveal a creature card, you put it into play tapped
There are two conditions that make it slightly different. If you hit Nameless Race, it will not proc, as it doesn't share a creature type with any creature card. Secondly, if you hit Zhalfirin Quest with "One with the Stars" or a similar card, it would now only hit creature types that have shown up on Enchantment Creatures or Kindred Enchantments. But yeah, in 99.999% of cases, it's just "if it's a creature".
@ yeah. There are those unique cases. It does come down to 99.99% will hit just because of changelings tho, let alone everything else
@@TheKrazyguy75 I would rule that changing the card types of a Zhalfirin Quest *permanent* actually does NOT work the way you described, because the text on Zhalfirin Quest explicitly mentions sharing a card type with a *card* named Zhalfirin Quest. Even if the only Zhalfirin Quest in play is just an Enchantment, the Zhalfirin Quest card still has the card type "creature".
@@misofac Oh true.
It could technically hit a Kindred Enchantment if the Kindred Creature type was shared by a Creature already on the board.
The X in Hulk of Kelds mana cost is to dodge Chalice of the Void, obviously
I still remember getting my mind blown by one RoboRosewater card that LRR played with a long time ago. It was a creature called "Remover of Obstacles". It was blue black, had flash, and "when this creature enters the battlefield target creature you don't control can not block this turn. Nothing too unique so far, but it also had Overload. For those who don't remember, Overload is "if you cast this spell for its Overload cost, replace the word 'target' with the word 'each'." So if you cast the card with Overload, every creature you do not control can not block that turn.
Here's the thing, Overload has never actually been printed on a creature. It was actually just a very playable and thematic card.
Wait till Postmodern Horizons (the new RRWM set) comes out. It's full of mechanically crazy cards and a lot more balanced than Spiral Chaos (the set which had that) was.
@@TheKrazyguy75 I didn't know there were actual sets of this. I thought it was a one-off thing LRR did. Now I need to look that up. Thank you!
@@wombatgirl997 Currently just the 1, and the second one is nearly done. We've got it to the point where only like 5-6 cards of the 300 get replaced per playtest.
I think overload is one of those keywords like trample where as humans we know how it works on a creature but Magic really doesn't so they'd have to really retemplate it to do that card properly (IIRC Remover of Obstacles also said when it enters OR attacks creatures can't block)
@@gaz-l621 a creature with overload does not need overload to be changed. it just works. replacing "target" with "each" is actually super simple in the mtg rules.
Phyrexia: All Will Be Five
New Phiverexia
The Five Ring
Loved hearing the song "It's Five" in the background at the end.
The Vulshok Axe discount *almost* matters with Form of the Approach of the Second Sun, which turns you into a card. Now you just need a mana value...
For Zhalfiran Quest, literally the first check is identical to the last. It's any creature with a creature type.
Zhalfiran Quest has 1 card type: Creature, so it triggers on any creature card that shares a creature type with any creature card including itself.
So the end result is "if it's a creature card that isn't nameless race".
Yeah, Legendary is a super type, not a card type, so it's not relevant.
there's also Mara of the Sand at 12:22, that's a creature without a creature type.
But if you had changed Zhalfiran Quest to an artifact or enchantment somehow, then it could be any creature type on an Enchantment Creature, Artifact Creature or Kindred Artifact/Enchantment.
It's a headache, but it can do some stupid tricks.
@@RobertAlchemyprimeBlack If you changed it to a non-creature artifact or enchantment, sure.
there’s also the shrines from neo that don’t have creature types, only the enchantment type
Mara of the Sand enters the battlefield with early-onset dementia
Thank you DB crew for all your hard work you put into these events!
It's always really fun to see you read and react to our cards.
Man, Racing Lagoon's music in the background... That's a (satisfying) deep cut
Zhalfiran Quest is easier to understand if you imagine that it were an enchantment, rather than a creature. Suppose that Zhalfirin Quest had been turned into a noncreature enchantment, such as by One With the Stars (from Theros: Beyond Death). Now, imagine your topdeck is a Spellstutter Sprite, which is a Faerie Creature. There exists a card, Bitterblossom, which shares a creature type (Faerie) with Spellstutter Sprite, and a card type (Enchantment) with the one-with-the-stars-ed Quest. Therefore, you get to put the Sprite into play. However, if your topdeck card is an Arclight Phoenix, you wouldn't get to play it, because no cards currently exist which are both a Phoenix and an Enchantment.
However, as printed, Zhalfirin Quest just says "if your top card is a creature, and a creature exists with that creature type, put the top deck into play" which is tautologically true.
I second this take.
"because no cards currently exist which are both a Phoenix and an Enchantment"
You just made Detective's Phoenix sad
I'm delighted to hear Tuneshop from the Racing Lagoon OST right at the beginning.
Intantly recognizable niche OST
Machine learning algorithms and markov chain generators ARE what marketing calls "AI".
I worked at place that had a shift clock in and out go into a spreadsheet, which then calculated average values and spat out a new schedule. We were told that it was AI
Yeah, it's not a different technology - but it is a difference of scale. This generator is trained by CocoaMix in-house on exclusively Magic cards, as opposed to a GPT that's trained on stolen stuff from everywhere on the Internet.
Legendary is a super-type, creature is a card-type, Gargoyle is a sub-type
Wait, Hulk of Keld can actually be used to pay additional costs, because you still have to pay those even if you cast the card without paying its mana cost.
So, the mana ability is basically only useful under Trinisphere? That's the only scenario that I can think of that would let you cast something without paying its mana cost and still have to pay mana for it.
@@mrrodgers0 Or kicker, or any other thing that explicitly says "as an additional cost".
Divine Matcher: “Cake or death?”
3:30 - My interpretation is that this allows any creature with a non-unique creature type, i.e. multiple cards have been printed with that creature type
The card type shared is always "Creature"
The RoboRosewater model is technically a Recurring Neural Network trained on a database of Magic cards, so definitionally it *is* generative AI, and it *technically* has the same copyright issues as all other generative AI, although I don't think it carries the ethical problems that something like ChatGPT has, because it is mostly used for fun, not for commercial purposes. (And because there is zero risk of it replacing the real thing anytime soon.)
Source: Actually ran the model on my machine for a bit back when it first came around, ages ago.
(Not using AI-generated art is a nice decision!)
Darge Barge is awesome for the Celestial Toymaker, another guessing card!
you can become a card with form of the approach of the second sun, so theoretically there is a scenario where you could cast yourself with something like future sight, but you still wouldn't become a spell because then you leave your library and so you stop being a card?
Would the mana from Hulk of Keld be useable to cast something while there is a Trinisphere in play? I just watched the "Terrible Tribal CEDH" VOD and this interaction came up.
The blank-name Cephalid Soldier card makes me really want to make token copies of big creatures and represent them with food.
All becomes 5.
10:57 : “four generic mana to make your land drop for turn” : I’ve seen it claimed that by the rules, if a land card lists a mana cost in the usual area, you don’t actually have to pay that cost? (Presumably: unless the card says you have to?)
From my understanding: Lands are not spells, therefore the option to "cast" one is not a legal action. They operate under their own rules for how they are played.
From a practical standpoint, this won't come up because they don't print lands with mana costs. If you wanted to make a card behavior this wat, it would say something like "When enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you pay [cost]"
I argue that if in a game of magic all becomes five then all instances of the word “all” become the number “5”. Kill all creatures becomes kill five creatures. This effect might have to generate an emblem to be functional.
I think the Hulk of Keld, you can at LEAST "wash" the mana with mana doubling effects. It is one of the only uses of that one commander only lotus card in modern afterall...
15:21 Probably a Food token, if they consent.
Oh! Graham chose Food Token too! 😊
Wait isnt mara the sand basically a show and tell kind of effect?
oh the art they used for These cards were all public domain or human made? cool. i know for quite a while there was tons of art from generative ai being used and discussed. havent been on the discord much lately so idk if they're still doing that
15:18 Flavorwise, it has to be The Hand that Feeds.
Something to put in another plyer: thrumming stone.
"Becomes the monarch"
"Enters the dungeon"
"Guesses the air, the party or artifacts"
"Takes the initiative"
All meaningless words Magic players say
14:18 It doesn't say it needs to be a non-token permanent. If you're representing a token with something... creative... this could lead to some "interactive gameplay".
so for the Probation Warden: I understood it that all instances of All are replaced with 5
Destroy all creatures -> Destroy 5 creatures
Which makes it much more instresting build around piece imho
Phyrexia, 5 will be 1
Primal Hunger: the cost of driving home in this economy
I want the planeswalker to control the game
Zhalfirin Quest is so broken from a delay of game point of view XD
So, basically, if you can pull a "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" between Zhalfirin Quest and the top card of your library, you get it for free.
4:40 Sir? That's not what 'hand attack' means.
would hulk of keld aid in kicker costs? tax effects? ward triggers?
Ward isn't an additional cost on the spell being cast, it's a triggered ability that counters the spell/ability unless the opponent pays that cost.
Raising my hand, I call out, "Judge, the player who controls the game just left the game. What happens?"
Not to sound dumb but what makes markov chains and stuff different to generative AI?
Mostly the level of complexity. Markov chains are fairly simply statistical methods to generate text. You calculate how frequently one token (often words) happens after another and then pick from the most likely next word each time. At a very high level this same description could also be applied to LLMs, but they do a lot more than just that and markov chains are really that simple.
Not much, especially considering they first said "machine learning" before that. Seems to me like a way to soothe the people who hate "AI" but don't know anything about it other than the word they use for it.
@@ArchaicEX The difference is that 1, markov chains are defined based on some source material and don't refine themselves over time (the "learning" part of machine learning), and 2, they are vastly simpler and barely require any processing power. It seems like you don't know much about AI other than the word you use for it.
@@littlemisspipebomb4723 They're also ONLY trained on one specific thing, in this case Magic card texts.
@@JoachimSauer1 I apologize for being ignorant, but isn't that how generative AI works?
Probation Warden - fiverexia all will be five
13:27 the spell with the power
0:30 : “these are not generative AI” : I think it kind of funny that you feel you need to specify this, especially as it…
I mean, what does “generative AI” even mean other than “an ML model generates something in some medium (whether text or an image)” ?
Now, these aren’t generated by a LLM , but a smaller language model trained only on MTG cards (AIUI),
but, while I think the architecture is probably a LSTM model rather than a transformer,
I don’t see why you would see such a difference in architectures as making a fundamental difference.
I think the biggest differences are in:
1) the dataset being used to train the model (“all MTG cards” vs “a large fraction of all text found on the internet (including pretty much all MTG cards)”)
2) the size of the models (small vs big)
3) the amount of compute used in training and running the models (small vs big)
If you want to make an ethical distinction based on these kinds of differences, go ahead. Quantity has a quality all its own, after all, so that could very well make sense.
But, if you don’t want to make a distinction based on scale (or breadth of sources for the training data), I don’t think you have much else to base things off of. The difference in the architectures is pretty much incidental, and imo is implausible as a basis for making a moral distinction.
I kinda agree. I think the main difference is that this is made using a narrowly specialized tool whereas most LLMs are, well, General Purpose. But fundamentally even if this was made using a Markov Chain generator, which is extremely primitive compared to what neural networks do, it would still be fair to call it AI-generated, mostly because "AI" doesn't mean anything (thanks, clueless business buzzword people).
they are just trying to reduce the blowback from an audience they have which is anti ai even though theyve used ai a lot because turns out its not ontologically evil
A tribe named Quest lol
my face hurts
I miss the days when robo rosewater would generate a mix of actually functional cards with extremely silly power level, and utter word salad that makes no sense grammatically or logically.
It still does both of those things. The cards here are obviously human curated to pick the funniest ones
@@GKoopa That is correct. We had a group of about 15 people vote on 60-ish cards and then we submitted the top 15!
Fiverexia
Re: Graham at 10:30
th-cam.com/video/rw2_Dm8K0Vc/w-d-xo.html
The only valid use of AI
Some of the worst RoboRosewater cards to date, absolute F grade. Only a few funny moments in the entire thing, very little in the way of funny rules moments, not even many workable rules moments, just... Very very sad start. I hope the rest of this year's DBFH goes better!
Oh what a joy you are 🙄
@@LotofNothing Just a really long-time LRR fan with moderate standards is all. I am plenty joyful in comments on better clips. :P
@@LotofNothing It's okay to not enjoy absolutely everything.