We don’t know a lot yet. This recaps most of what has been revealed so far.

https://mtgrocks.com/mtg-designer-reveals-mystery-2025-plane-isnt-so-mysterious/

How do you feel about the direction that new planes have taken? I think it’s fair to say the scope of what can be a magic plane has increased dramatically recently, from the guns of New Capenna, the tech in modern Kamigawa and Duskmourn, and the increasing variety of intelligent animals that aren’t humanoid like lionen.

We’re getting an Omenpath racing set and a space plane this year, which I think will be distinctly different from previously explored tropes and backdrops.

I understand that WotC wants to capture the potential for MTG as a game and framework to be applied to nearly anything, and that for whatever franchise they choose to expand Universes Beyond to there will be a bunch of fans who are thrilled to see cards for their beloved characters.

What worries me is that the more MTG is everything, the more diluted the game’s own identity becomes. I fell in love with a game that depicted its own worlds and told its own story. I came to accept that Universes Beyond had a place in MTG and it felt ok when used sparingly, but I think 2025 is the year that we cross the threshold into hugely expanded scope for crossovers.

I just hope Magic still feels like Magic a year from now.

You can override the icon anyway. Instead of using the X app, I have a Firefox shortcut for x.com but it’s called Twitter and has the bird app icon instead of a big X.

Is there a reason it needs to be an app? I was in a similar situation and what worked best for me was just replacing the YouTube app with a Firefox shortcut to YouTube.com. I’m still logged in and the uBlock Origin extension strips the ads out. I think the Sponsorblock extension should also work with this system.

In general I’ve just started replacing apps with annoying ads with either a Firefox webapp or a Firefox shortcut. Works great and reduces the app count on my phone too.

Believe me, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case, and I 100% think this is wrong.

My take here is that filling out a government form and having it be rejected because you didn’t put required information that isn’t stated as required into a box that the form doesn’t have and getting denied/made to redo it is an extremely plausible scenario. In the case of a cis person being denied this way, it’s a mundane bit of bureaucratic nonsense that nobody would blink an eye at.

The article states:

The law has been in place in some form for decades, though it’s rarely been used and usually arises in the context of candidates wishing to use a nickname.

The fact that this law has been identified as a real problem for trans people and that there is a quote in the article from the (Republican) governor saying “this is bad, we should fix it” strikes me as acknowledgement that this dumb rule is disproportionately affecting trans people and should be fixed.

We have a depressing number of real examples of malicious use of the law against trans people, so all I’m saying is that this one doesn’t seem worth getting fired up about unless there is evidence of actual malicious intent here.

I’m going with Hanlon’s Razor on this one and assuming this is just a really stupid bureaucratic failure where a form doesn’t have a box for required info that it doesn’t tell you is required. Curious if there are similar examples for name changes by cis people, which I wouldn’t expect to be newsworthy. Regardless it needs to be fixed.