abysmalpoptart

I don't think this is a particularly fair take. Some people bought at high prices because it seemed like the right move (in 2008, for example), market crashes, you're stuck with your investment even if you're underwater (upside down).

It's definitely not fair to assume what his costs are compared to the cost to rent. It isn't necessary to have the example above to reside in an area where mortgages far exceed rent. Northern Virginia in the USA is a good example, where townhomes can easily exceed 1 million USD, which would typically require a 30-50k+ down payment plus closing costs, and would then be 5k+ in a mortgage. Rent that place for 4500 and that's a loss on monthly costs, but of course the landlord is earning long term equity (and that is the value, but they may not be turning a profit).

Edit: I'm simply stating that it's unfair to assume the original commenter is lying about not making a profit. I'm not suggesting they aren't experiencing a net gain in equity.

Yeah i totally missed that, edited my edits. Thanks!

Comments like these remind me that so many maps are super unfriendly to the color blind, which has to be annoying to so many people

Edit:

Didn't realize this was specifically in 1922, so it looks like it is probably due to a combination of war/control and legal changes.

Austria was apparently split based on which part of the country was controlled by Napoleon, and this lasted for quite awhile, though a few sources cite different lengths of time for the mixed driving laws. I wanted to use a local source here but it was paywalled.

Also, apparently Italy and Spain (and Canada?) changed from left side to right side drive in the 1920s, so this probably reflects that change in Europe.

I think the question is asking for an explanation of how that is possible that some areas are right and some are left within the same country. Does the local government decide (city, state, etc), or is it something else, and why.

Additionally, they seem to be partially color blind, since they can't differentiate the purple from blue.

Edit: Copying my other comment here, based on some light Internet research which may or may not be accurate.

Austria was apparently split based on which part of the country was controlled by Napoleon, and this lasted for quite awhile, though a few sources cite different lengths of time for the mixed driving laws. I wanted to use a local source here but it was paywalled.

Also, apparently Italy and Spain (and Canada?) changed from left side to right side drive in the 1920s, so this probably reflects that change in Europe.

Oof I'll be on the lookout for that, thanks for the explanation without too much spoiler. I really haven't been fond of combat for the last several final fantasy iterations, but i have some hope that XVI at least delivers on story.

Totally understand, and that makes sense, and i can appreciate the clarification and sentiment. I'm just starting XVI and the story is interesting, though the combat is not what i typically look for in a final fantasy game. I guess we'll see how it progresses..

I don't think it's fair to flatly posit that since the CDC has been wrong at some point in the past, they can't ever be trusted. While i understand the concept of don't blindly follow words regardless of who said it, the sheer amount of research and dedication from an organization such as the CDC should count quite a bit more than the folks who have done none.

I don't have the means to do such research, and as such i will more heavily weigh the words of the applicable research team than i will the words of someone who has no knowledge on the topic.

I think the question really should be not "have they ever been wrong," but instead, "do i think they're wrong on purpose." A lot of research teams are funded by one side of an argument, which is cause for concern. The CDC is most likely not, and it would be fair to say they could be wrong, but likely not on purpose. Therefore i would say in this instance they are the more qualified experts who are also trying their best to be objective, and therefore, they likely have the more reasonable statement on this topic.

I appreciate that point of view, and I'll probably give it a go eventually. Interesting that it's more of a reimagining. To be fair, remake was free on my ps5, but I'll still wait until they're all available. I might try it when the final two are on sale

This is a really weird and unnecessarily aggressive take. I think that the other person is saying is that the communication about the games has been pretty poor, and it really isn't clear what the right move is. Other games make a lot more sense in both continuity and playing order. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult concept to grasp.

For example , FF7 remake isn't actually a remake. It's only the first act of ff7. Rebirth is somehow act 2? I don't understand why. Some people seem to think rebirth is DLC instead of part 2 and a standalone game at that.

I'm personally an og ff7 purist, and I'm rather annoyed that they split this up into multiple games. I'll just wait until all 3 are released and then... admittedly probably not play them unless they go on sale

I'm not having a glass of wine, I'm having six. It's called a tasting and it's classy!

Now you're making assumptions, and have already missed the point entirely. This would be the engage the community portion, not the get new members portion. It's a long process. You can't just proselytize at every moment, it simply doesn't work that way anymore.

That isn't the point though, it's to first better engage the community, then preach later. there's an art to proper outreach. Convince the community that you're part of it, then they express interest in your organization. That's when you go for it. If it's all preaching all day, that simply won't attract new members. And overly preachy metal music would probably chase almost everyone away. And who would want to hang out somewhere that's just non-stop preaching? That sounds horrible

Not everything is completely black and white. In fact, that kind of exclusive thinking is what drives people away. The point here is to improve the image, encourage the community to get more engaged, and just be there. Potential new members will come along.

Honestly, the mindset of "why bother if you aren't preaching" sounds very similar to a business caring only about its stocks. What about research? Quality control? Community outreach? Those things are important for a good company to thrive, as opposed to one looking only at short term profits. Look at what's happening with Boeing. They're focused on stocks only, the same way some churches only care about preaching. and their image is tanking, and everyone is wondering what happened.

If your goal is to acquire more members, then you need to find a way to reach other people in a way that makes sense to them, not you. Imagine trying to teach English to non English speakers. You don't just do it randomly in the town square, spouting off the virtues of English speaking. you need to entice people to even want to not only learn English in the first place, but from you.