Some of us really do love the end of the heat of Summer/Fake Fall and that first snow is worth celebrating^^
I think it has a lot to do with the climate you live in as well. I know I kinda dislike winter because heating a house in -40 degree weather is expensive, and having to throw on a parka and boots just to throw some garbage in the outdoor bin sucks. Can't open windows to air out the house, can't barbecue. Probably my least favourite part is the sun is only up for like 2 hours a day, leading to some wicked seasonal affective disorder.
Very fair. As someone who lives in the Rockies of Colorado, where Snow means more for accessible water than rain or rivers ever will, the first Autumn Snow is the same sense of revival that the first blooms of spring hold for many places.
When someone says "Canada", most people think of Toronto, Ontario. But Toronto is practically a USA city both in terms of location and atmosphere. It's not even all that cold, and they famously called in the National Guard when it snowed because they didn't have the means to deal with it.
The prairies on the other hand are probably more what you're actually picturing when you hear the name Canada: snowy, cold, impossibly flat. Like half of our provincial budget goes to keeping the streets clear of snow, yet they usually blow past that budget before the New Year.
Most (like 90%) of the Canadian population lives within hours of the US border where it’s warm as hell, so we snowflakes call them faux-Canadians
I'm not sure it's so much the temperature as it is transportation. The farther north you go, the more expensive things like groceries and fuel become. You have to drive all the way to the south just to reach the Trans-Canada Highway or an international airport.
When someone says "Canada", most people think of Toronto, Ontario. But Toronto is practically a USA city both in terms of location and atmosphere. It's not even all that cold, and they famously called in the National Guard when it snowed because they didn't have the means to deal with it.
The prairies on the other hand are probably more what you're actually picturing when you hear the name Canada: snowy, cold, impossibly flat. Like half of our provincial budget goes to keeping the streets clear of snow, yet they usually blow past that budget before the New Year.
As someone who lives in Toronto, can attest the truth of this statement. lol
When someone says "Canada", most people think of Toronto, Ontario. But Toronto is practically a USA city both in terms of location and atmosphere. It's not even all that cold, and they famously called in the National Guard when it snowed because they didn't have the means to deal with it.
Toronto was more like New York city than any other city I had ever seen. Of course this was half a century ago.
Unprepared for snow???? The temperate maritime west coast from Vancouver B. C. to Eugene OR is paralyzed by anything over 4" 10 cm.
When I lived in Seattle they had 22 snowplow blades for the entire city. They still use their bus' brake activated sanders more than actual sanding equipment.
At 4" Vancouver shuts down the Lionsgate bridge except for plow trucks. 6" of wet snow + cars would collapse it.
Undervolted this monster to draw 280-300w with only a 2-5% performance loss. Runs off less power than my Undervolted 3090 did for less of a degradation in clock speed. Great success
RE4 and SH2..
So hype. Altho to be honest I never played SH2 past the beginning, I was too scared as a kid which is funny considering I was such a RE fan
Overwatch 2 recently stated they have 25 million players, which is complete nonsense.
Overwatch 2 got review-bombed on most sites, giving them a Metacritic score of like 2/10, but what's extra funny is that if you go to the Xbox Storefront, it has a much higher review... because they carried all of the reviews since 2017 about the original Overwatch xD
So tired of companies making up BS claims about how many tens of millions of players their games have when it's blatantly obvious they don't have anywhere near that.
Overwatch 2 recently stated they have 25 million players, which is complete nonsense. All they did was convert the Overwatch 1 database of 6 years of players to Overwatch 2 and made all PC accounts active in the database for 1 second to class them as active. This way they are technically being truthful.
I would be amazed if even 1% of the actual Overwatch 1 lifetime players are playing 2, if not for the console account limitation of consoles having to be manually linked they would of said they had 100 million players at launch (they could only auto link pc accounts)
They also love to pretend that every player that has ever tried a game is forever active and never leaves, which again is rubbish. The vast majority of "players" quit in the first 10-20 minutes, never to return but will forever after be counted as a "player" just the same.
So tired of companies making up BS claims about how many tens of millions of players their games have when it's blatantly obvious they don't have anywhere near that.
Overwatch 2 recently stated they have 25 million players, which is complete nonsense. All they did was convert the Overwatch 1 database of 6 years of players to Overwatch 2 and made all PC accounts active in the database for 1 second to class them as active. This way they are technically being truthful.
I would be amazed if even 1% of the actual Overwatch 1 lifetime players are playing 2, if not for the console account limitation of consoles having to be manually linked they would of said they had 100 million players at launch (they could only auto link pc accounts)
They also love to pretend that every player that has ever tried a game is forever active and never leaves, which again is rubbish. The vast majority of "players" quit in the first 10-20 minutes, never to return but will forever after be counted as a "player" just the same.
2 types of math people left in this world- those who know how to use numbers to do what they want, and those who think numbers never lie. Makes for one helluva easy tactic to use on the foolish/trusting.
2 types of math people left in this world- those who know how to use numbers to do what they want, and those who think numbers never lie. Makes for one helluva easy tactic to use on the foolish/trusting.
I still love it when an ad says something like "Our hamburger patties are made with 100% beef!"
Like, no kidding. That implies that one of your ingredients is beef. What are the other ingredients? Even if I was somehow so unaware of the English language to think you meant "made 100% out of beef", that wouldn't make sense because surely there's some salt and pepper in there, likely a bit of egg to hold it all together.
That fact tells me nothing about how much of the patty is actually made out of meat. It could still be 99% filler for all that tells me.
I still love it when an ad says something like "Our hamburger patties are made with 100% beef!"
Like, no kidding. That implies that one of your ingredients is beef. What are the other ingredients? Even if I was somehow so unaware of the English language to think you meant "made 100% out of beef", that wouldn't make sense because surely there's some salt and pepper in there, likely a bit of egg to hold it all together.
That fact tells me nothing about how much of the patty is actually made out of meat. It could still be 99% filler for all that tells me.
Everything is a lie
Unfortunately it's all legal and works extremely well.
I still love it when an ad says something like "Our hamburger patties are made with 100% beef!"
Old urban legends that McDonalds and Burger King were rockin' sawdust patties, and then Wendy's famous "Where's the Beef?" campaign. I got your point on how the wording allows them to do what Joe Schmo interprets as a lie, but yet it isn't- but even the need to specify that Hamburger includes Beef has a very interesting ad war history :)
2 types of math people left in this world- those who know how to use numbers to do what they want, and those who think numbers never lie. Makes for one helluva easy tactic to use on the foolish/trusting.
Highly recommended reading:
Luckily I have no reason to lie with statistics, but in most applications it wouldn't even be hard. I work with engineers, and the vast majority of them don't have a clue how statistics work beyond whatever they learned in Stats 101. A little bit of technobabble here, some fancy looking equations there, and that's all it would take. The "appeal to authority" logical fallacy works great when you're the authority.
Of course, that would only work until you're audited by someone who actually has a clue.
half of it can be attributed to a lack of understanding statistics, but never forget how much our proper use of the English language has fallen as well. Its the turning of words that's just as much to blame for the deceiving use of stats- as much as the stats themselves.
It's the same as things like "This will increase your chances by 80%!" means it's only an 80% increase to what your odds already were, it doesn't mean you have an 80% chance of doing the thing.
ie: This will increase your chances of making the shot by 80%!
If you have a 1/100 chance of making it in the first place.
Increasing it by 80% doesn't mean it's now 81/100, it's now 1.8/100
This is a thread that I found on another website I post at. It can be really really interesting. I thought it deserved a place here.
Post your random thoughts for the day here, or anything else that intrigues you.
For starters, is it possible to give constructive critism to someone who doesn't have a neck? I totally just walked by a girl who didn't. Someone isn't getting a necklace for Valentines day!
And who decided black and white can't be colors? I want to say a racist. I really do.