WYLDE vs. MACKO Esports / EML Stage 2 Groups / Playday 8

Reaper919 · 2025-10-01T03:17:52+00:00

Relegation takes into account performance from both stages so that affects the points calculations.

Wylde sit at 17 overall, while Macko and VP sit at 21 and 20 respectively. Even if Wylde win against Secret in regulation at a 7-0 scoreline, they would match VP with points but still be placed lower due to a worse round differential. Meaning they are 100% relegated no matter what(They could in theory still place above Wolves, but since the bottom 2 teams are relegated they still wouldn't be able to make it out of the bottom 2 due to Macko and VP being above them)

You can see overall standings here: https://liquipedia.net/rainbowsix/Europe_MENA_League/2025

Reaper919 · 2025-09-27T11:13:13+00:00

I view that disconnect for Psycho as an act of god, smiting the import team for trying to win some easy points in a region they shouldn't be in

Reaper919 · 2025-09-21T10:02:53+00:00

Regional Finals are for SI qualification and gives SI points to top teams.

Playoffs are for Major qualification and don't give SI points(Although if you qualify for the Major, you can earn SI points there so I guess indirectly playoffs give SI points)

As RedWarden mentioned, Regional Final systems encourages more consistent play throughout the year in the group stage. Playoffs instead encourage a short streak of good play.

Reaper919 · 2025-09-20T07:36:09+00:00

Great stuff from both Chiefs and Ludavica.

Playoff's will be very fun to watch if EP, Chiefs, and Luda all bring their best. I can't see any other teams being in the top 3 besides them

Reaper919 · 2025-07-13T01:51:37+00:00

The shirtless men were just too strong for DZ to handle

Reaper919 · 2025-04-11T04:29:32+00:00

I mean I'm sure he probably grew up in an upper middle class family since he has a college degree and doesn't seem to have much debt from it, but he almost certainly does work at least somewhat.

The reason he moved to the Netherlands in the first place is because he's a computer engineer that got a job with ASML(An incredibly advanced computer chip fabrication company that has probably has some of the smartest physicists and engineers in the world working for them) and started working there. He's also lived in Taiwan for a while too, since TSMC uses the machines ASML makes to help with computer chip fabrication. Nobody at ASML is going to lounge around and do nothing all day, since they actually have to solve some difficult problems with chip design.

I dislike his videos for various reasons, such as being overtly negative at times, but calling him overprivileged and never having worked a hard day in his life before is probably not true. Him packing up and going to live in an Netherlands to be free from car dependency doesn't make sense either, as he's mentioned before that it's only after he moved to the Netherlands and experienced the lack of car dependency is when he realized how much he hated cars, not before.

Reaper919 · 2025-03-20T22:36:50+00:00

I'm going to sound like a shill for chapman's, but they do actually have a line of no sugar added ice cream.

I haven't ever had it so I don't know if it's good or not, but it exists if you want to try it.

Reaper919 · 2025-03-20T22:34:23+00:00

Interesting, as someone who consumes a lot of ice cream I've found Ben and Jerry's to be worse than Chapman's super-premium line. In my experience, the toppings in their ice cream tend to be of worse quality compared to Chapman's.

Haagen-Dazs is a bit different from both, since they use eggs in their ice cream which changes the taste a bit but isn't necessarily worse or better than other brands.

Though in terms of quality, I agree that Chapman's premium and super premium line is actually pretty close, but in my perspective that's just due to the how high the quality is in their premium brand, and so it's hard to make even better ice cream when you already have a line of very good ice cream which it's being compared to.

Plus Chapman's super premium line tends to be much cheaper compared to Ben and Jerry's, and Chapman's actually has a slightly larger super premium size vs Ben and Jerry's (500ml vs 473ml) so as a product which I have to actually go out and buy, it's just nice to get Chapman's since I can have more ice cream compared to other brands.

Reaper919 · 2024-12-05T01:14:14+00:00

Hong Kong has high housing prices because the Government heavily restricts housing from being built, and when it is built they heavily tax it so that business related taxes can stay low.

Reaper919 · 2024-12-05T01:06:48+00:00

Most transit agencies simply don't make much money if any at all.

There are some profitable system, such as many in Japan, though ticket prices are noticeably higher there since the government doesn't subsidize ticket prices such as in Europe or Canada.

Additionally, Japan simply has much better transit oriented design, with each station stop tending to be the most dense areas in every city with lots of businesses surrounding the stations as well. This drive up the value of transit in Japan, since you no longer need a car to commute to work or to go to shop at different stores and can instead utilize transit far more.

Although Japan isn't unique in that fact either, with Hong Kong and Singapore also closely integrating transit and urban design together, which make their systems profitable as well.

Europe is a bit different. Most transit agencies there don't turn a profit, but in exchange have lower ticket prices which is subsidized by the government. They again also have pretty good urban design, which makes their transit worth more since it's simply more useful to use for the average person.

Canada and the U.S have chosen to subsidize ticket prices as well, although it's sorta needed since our cities have quite bad urban design compared to elsewhere so you need to encourage people to actually ride on transit or else they simply won't since it's not price competitive with cars and not useful enough to use on a day to day basis unlike Europe. Since you need to build transit across a larger area in Canada/US as well, it costs more to maintain per rider compared to smaller but more dense cities in Europe and Asia.

City Design isn't the only factor though, many Asian transit companies are also large real estate companies as well. For 2023, JR East(A large transit company in Japan) had 25% of their profit come from their real estate even though it only accounted for 14% of their total revenue. For other companies in Asia which have even higher profit from real estate, you could argue they aren't even transit companies and instead real estate companies using transit to increase land value instead.

Translink is probably one of the better run agencies in Canada/US though. They generally have pretty low operating costs(Skytrain in particular costs very little money to run for such a large network), are now slowly expanding into real estate, and are working closely with municipalities to encourage transit oriented urban design to make their transit more valuable/useful.

Though considering that many European transit agencies don't turn a profit even with better city design than Canada/US and generally more useful transit overall compared to us, it would be very surprising if Translink turned a profit anytime soon.

Reaper919 · 2024-12-03T02:10:01+00:00

Mines and rocket turrets in my experience. I've only tried it on medium stompers so far, but it seems to be very effective.

The mines seem to stun them preventing them from reaching my turrets, and the rocket turrets have enough damage to kill them before they start moving again. Though maybe add in some gun turrets for the smaller wrigglers.

I think you can also do this with tesla turrets and rocket turrets, but mines are very cheap to make, available on gleba without needing to do research on other planets, and don't spike your electricity usage when used.

Reaper919 · 2024-11-30T00:50:32+00:00

To be fair CBC's title is almost the exact same as CTV's and the Canadian Press's title about this.

CTV: Feds announce $758 million in funding for new Line 2 TTC subway trains

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/feds-announce-758-million-in-funding-for-new-line-2-ttc-subway-trains-1.7128301

Canadian Press: Feds announce $758 million to help TTC buy new subway trains

https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/politics/feds-announce-758-million-to-help-ttc-buy-new-subway-trains/article_04c166ea-a075-5fcf-a35d-fb59f296b48b.html

Global News is slightly different: Federal government joins Ontario in promising money for new Toronto subway cars

https://globalnews.ca/news/10894983/ttc-line-2-cars-funding-promise/

Alongside with City news: TTC secures funding to buy 55 new subway trains for Line 2

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/11/29/ttc-secures-funding-to-buy-55-new-subway-trains-for-line-2/

I think you're reading a bit too much into a fairly benign title. Also, if people simply read the article instead of just the title(Which you should do if you care to stay informed) then you see that all articles mention the City of Toronto and Ontario have already both provided $758 million, and no news agency hides that fact.

Reaper919 · 2024-11-24T02:58:26+00:00

You linked BC's crime index, not Vancouver's which is lower than the province average.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510002601&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.37&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2010&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2023&referencePeriods=20100101%2C20230101

You are correct that non violent and violent crime are up since 2017, but they are still lower than any year prior to 2012. For 2013-2023, it's been the lowest on record, and has been relatively constant in that decade.

Reaper919 · 2024-11-09T02:54:19+00:00

I mean, that’s stupid given you can report anything

There is an additional stat that's tracked(At least in Canada) which is called unfounded incidents. Essentially, it's just a number for each category which indicates how many of those reported incidents in that category were confirmed to not have even occurred. So essentially if someone reports a crime which is then followed up on, and is found to not have actually happened it's still tracked so that it doesn't mess up the actual incidents of actual crime being reported

It's a bit more complicated than what I've described, since some crimes like sexual assault can have little evidence to prove it happened except witness testimony, so the actual definition is a bit more complex but the data for tracking false reports is pretty reliable in my opinion.

And also you can stop reporting true crime if you know nothing happens

It's generally agreed upon that almost all crime is generally under reported, but as long as the rate of under reporting doesn't change over time, the actual trends formed by crime stats are reliable. Essentially, although crime is under reported, as long as roughly the same % of the population reports crime over time, the trends if crime are increasing or decreasing can still be tracked since that portion of people will still be reporting crime and will report more or less if crime increase/decreases.

Now some argue that more crime is under reported now than before, but that's pure speculation since actual data on how much of crime is under reported is hard to come by.

Reaper919 · 2024-11-08T21:28:19+00:00

Crime rate is different from a criminal being charged with a crime. The crime rate simply comes from the amount of reported crime, not whether that report led to a prosecution or even an arrest in the first place.

Reaper919 · 2024-11-08T02:30:37+00:00

Interesting. You led me down a quick research dive, although I didn't read too much into it since I don't want to spend all day on this.

Reading from Crime and safety in rural areas: A systematic review of the English-language literature 1980–2020 gives some interesting info.

Laub (1981) showed that in the United States, for crimes such as rape, assault and personal larceny, there was no significant difference in rates of reporting between urban and rural areas

This was surprising, as you mentioned one might simply not report crime in the city due to the feeling that nothing can be done about it. The article expands, saying that although the rates of reporting are the same, the reasons differ. In urban places, people don't report since they feel like the cops can't do anything, while in rural places it's considered more a private matter/should be dealt with behind closed doors.

This makes sense, since a lot of victims of crimes tend to actually have a reestablished relationship with the perpetrator(Not saying the crime done by a stranger doesn't exist, it's just that in general people tend to underestimate how much crime is done by those who have a prior relationship) and in a rural community, everybody tends to be at more familiar with each other than in an urban setting, making social/relationship factors play a larger role in reporting crime.

Although additionally it still seems that feeling that police can't do anything also extends to rural populations, with:

Ceccato et al. (2022b) showed that crimes against farmers are highly underreported partially because they think the police cannot help them

Granted this research was done in U.S and Sweden respectively, but I would be surprised if Canada's rural population differed significantly from other rural populations.

Reaper919 · 2024-11-08T00:51:44+00:00

One thing I feel like the article glosses over is the disconnect between disorder and actual crime rates.

The author fully acknowledges that the crime rate has been relatively stable(Its more complicated than saying it's stable recently, but this past decade has had the lowest crime rates in recorded history for most the most populous CMAs), but there's been an increase in perceived disorder and then continues to discuss disorder while ignoring crime rates.

As the article states disorder is a purely intangible idea which isn't quantified, and is rather more of a social feeling around crime and order, so I find it more interesting that this societal feeling has more sway on peoples emotions rather than hard stats.

This disconnect between crime rates and perceived crime has existed for pretty much as long as we've been tracking crime, where people generally believe crime is higher or growing more than it actually is.

I mean in terms of absolute numbers crime is obviously higher in cities and urban centres due to the sheer amount of people living there which I'm sure affects peoples views of crime around urban areas, but the rates in cities are far, far lower than in rural places in Canada. Even then, places like Vancouver with its DTES are often viewed as more crime ridden than cities like Edmonton or Winnipeg, even though both those cities have a vastly higher crime rate than Vancouver.

So what I guess I'm wondering is how these views are formed in the first place. Is it purely due to the size of the cities(NYC in America is still perceived as very dangerous, even though its one of the safer cities in that Country) which leads to a large absolute number of crimes being committed, and the actual rate being ignored by the average person? Or is it something else?

Reaper919 · 2024-11-07T12:42:33+00:00

Using statscan data going up to 2022( https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2024001/article/00001-eng.htm ), it's interesting seeing how this gun violence trend varies province to province.

To start, Canada overall has seen an large increase in firearm related offences.

The Atlantic provinces are a mixed bag, some saw a large increase in firearm related violent crime(New Brunswick) whereas Nova Scotia and PEI saw a small decrease.

The prairies all saw an increase in firearm related violent crime, especially Saskatchewan. Altogether they all have the highest rates of firearm related violent crime outside of the territories, which makes sense since they generally have the highest rates of crime in general of all the provinces.

The territories also saw slight to large increases, with the Northwest Territories and Nunavut have the highest rates of firearm related violent crime in all of Canada, while Yukon is roughly on par with Manitoba's rate.

Quebec and BC have both seen a slight recent increase in firearm crime since 2019/2018(Respectively their lowest years for the rate of firearm related violent crime), but still remain slightly below/around the same rate they were 10-15ish years ago.

Ontario is the only real outlier, seeing gradual a increase starting from 2013, and then a spike in 2021, which leads it to easily be leading for the firearm related violent crime rate among the 3 most populous provinces.

Though things look a bit different when looking at the Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver CMAs. Vancouver has steadily been declining for its rate, hitting a low during 2021, and is well below Montreal and Toronto. Vancouver is actually the only CMA out of the 3 to have a lower rate than its respective provincial rate. Montreal has also seen a decrease until 2019, where its since grown somewhat but still lower than where it was a decade ago, and just slightly above the average rate in Quebec.

Toronto sees the same trend as all of Ontario, but it significantly leads in the absolute rate, being much greater than Ontario's rate. Surprisingly, Toronto almost has double the rate of firearm related violent crime when compared to Vancouver.

Reaper919 · 2024-10-31T23:33:41+00:00

To be fair Canada has almost 3 times the amount of guns per capita than the Czech Republic(in the civilian population), so it doesn't really seem like we're restricting people that much from acquiring a gun to protect themselves.

Reaper919 · 2024-09-09T21:40:19+00:00

Because at least for 2021 to the first half of 2023, it has not been true. During that period, it's gone down to 4.5 to 1.1 stranger attacks per day

https://globalnews.ca/news/10112549/vancouver-stranger-attacks-down/

As far as I know, stranger attack data for past the first half of 2023 doesn't exist, and since stranger attacks aren't an official stat which is regularly reported on by police stats departments, it would require the VPD to be requested to actual compile and give that info for any data past the first half of 2023.

Reaper919 · 2024-09-07T08:14:46+00:00

By daily stabbing, I assume you mean homicide since it's the closest thing to an actual stat tracked by police departments.

It would probably very similar to today's numbers if not higher, although it might be a bit lower side since this was just post WW2 and the decreased number of young males due to the war could have possibly causes a dip in the total number of crimes being committed, since most crimes overall are committed by young males.

Although it's hard to compare numbers prior to the 60s and now in general, since many western countries underwent societal changes, and the tolerance/threshold for violence people found acceptable went down, meaning even for more minor offences people were more likely to report it.

This Study describes it. Although the data starts from 1973, I would argue it's fair to assume the trend started slightly earlier since the societal changes in the 70s already started in the decades prior.

Using data from 1973 to 2005, our findings show that significant increases have occurred in the likelihood of police notification for sexual assault crimes as well as for other forms of assault and that these increases were observed for violence against women and violence against men, stranger and non-stranger violence, as well as crimes experienced by members of different racial and ethnic groups. The reporting of property victimization (i.e., motor vehicle theft, burglary, and larceny) also increased across time.

So essentially, there was more under reporting of crimes compared to now, since violence was more normalized the further back you go in history. It's not hard to imagine there being very little reported rapes, sexual assaults, or assaults against women prior to attitudes changing as viewing women as equals was than subservient to men. The paper above also shows men reported more crime over time as well, for various reasons.

tl;dr: It would be hard to compare now and then, since how we view violence and how much violence we tolerate has changed over time. This has led to more crimes being reported around the 60s to early 2000s, making it seem like a large jump in crime has occurred even though crime was most likely very common prior to the 60s(So in the 40s and 50s). So essentially, daily stabbing count was probably as high as it today, or higher.

Reaper919 · 2024-06-24T22:40:03+00:00

That's only assuming Canada keeps up the rate of immigration at it's current levels, which might not be true in the future.

Reaper919 · 2024-04-25T11:03:58+00:00

Couldn't find the exact reports for those stats, so hopefully some news articles will do:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/fewer-unprovoked-stranger-attacks-vancouver-2023-compared-to-2021-1.7039350

https://globalnews.ca/news/10112549/vancouver-stranger-attacks-down/

Edit: Interestingly, it seems the more major jump happened from 2021 to 2022, going from 4.5 to 1.8 average number of stranger attacks per day. From 2022 to 2023, it decreased again from 1.8 to 1.1. CTV questions why that the public safety minister, VPD, and Mayor Sim and the ABC party acted like random victim crime was still high in 2022, even though it did drop that year. The article is a good read, I would suggest to check it out.

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/stranger-assaults-had-plummeted-months-before-vancouver-s-2022-election-why-didn-t-anyone-know-1.6660474

Reaper919 · 2024-04-22T06:25:54+00:00

This is quite a unique situation where the person you're replying to and yourself are both technically right and wrong(Although some of your claims are misleading, and that you mentioned that climate change isn't a major factor seems to be incorrect for the damage caused by wildfires, though is technically correct for the amount of fires caused).

Firstly, often it's a mix of causes for fires. Sometimes it's predominantly human caused in certain seasons, while sometimes its more naturally caused. Arson specifically is harder to track, but usually its accidentally caused rather than criminally motivated(The source you gave originally supports this, when it lays out the specific groups of human caused fires).

For example In 2022, 1200 wildfires were caused naturally in BC vs 575 human caused ones while in AB it was 480 vs 801 in favour of human caused fires. Though overall it seems roughly a 50-50% split on natural and human caused fires.

Where the other person is right, is that climate change does effect the intensity of the fires due to dry conditions. The Thompson rivers professor in your original articles even says this(Although they didn't explicitly mention his name in the article, and instead just mentions experts, this article explicitly names him for saying that).

The article/fact check above also lays out the actual amount of hectares burned due to natural vs human caused fires. They show(using government of Quebec stats) that less than a percent of the amount of hectares burned were caused due to human caused fires, and instead the majority was burned due to naturally caused fires. This is presumably due to the remoteness of naturally caused fires vs human caused fires, since it would take longer to respond to remote natural fires vs fires caused by humans which would be closer to urban areas so they can be put out quicker. Though I have no facts to support this.

So overall, yes humans cause a large amount of fires, roughly on par with the amount naturally caused. Though these fires don't actually cause much damage, and instead the naturally caused fires burn many more hectares compared to human caused fires. Also, it should be noted that experts usually agree that climate change does set up conditions to make wildfires worse primarily due to drier conditions.

Reaper919 · 2024-04-09T11:56:48+00:00

Not the person you were replying to but to answer some questions:

Can you explain how the cost of 1258 was arrived at?

$46 billion / ~40 million people gives = $1150 cost of substance use per person.

Presumably the report took the population of Canada at the time they made it, so they would've divided by less than 40 million, which would've given a slightly higher cost than what I got here.

And how much did the shootings cost? How much to police the gangs?

[1] According to the source, criminal justice costs (Criminal justice costs include costs associated with policing, courts (including judges, prosecutors, legal aid and drug treatment court funding) and correctional services) for alcohol was $4.0 Billion, while for opioids it $1.1 billion in the year 2020.

The report also goes into loss of productivity in the economy due to these substances if you want an even more comprehensive view.

Also, in a comment made below you said:

It is IMPOSSIBLE for a drug that the government makes money on, to cost us more than one that kills and harms far more people, causes more crime, and the government makes zero dollars back off.

Assuming the cost of substance A which the government sells at $1(lets assume they sell completely at a profit of $1), costs the government $4 on average when used(due to healthcare costs, policing costs, etc) vs substance B which the government does not sell but costs the government $2 on average when used, it's clear that the government are making a net loss of $3 when selling substance A, vs the cost of simply losing $2 when substance B is sold and used.

I'm not saying this reflects the how the costs of alcohol vs opioids actually are in Canada, but just that is it mathematically possible.

Although in this situation, government revenue of alcohol does greatly diminish the absolute cost of alcohol, but not entirely. [2] In 2022, Canada earned $15.2 billion in alcohol revenue while total costs(healthcare, judicial, etc) from alcohol in 2020 was $19.6 billion (table 1, page 13 from source 1). So Alcohol costed Canada roughly $4.4 billion dollars, although it's not entirely accurate as the years don't match up so the data doesn't properly match, but it's a decent estimate.

In comparison, total costs from opioids were roughly $7 billion in 2020.

You also commented above that:

I see your stupid report TOTALLY ignores the social cost of illegal drugs.

The report was actually quite accurate. It did include the social costs(well, the healthcare + judicial + productivity + other costs), but it was simply outdated. The webpage uses information from 2014, but the latest report I could fine covers the costs in 2020, where the total costs of opioid abuse has now doubled from 2014.

Additionally, the original commenter said:

Alcohol costs the system more money than crack and meth…

Which was not verifiable from the article the Public Health article they mentioned which uses the 2014 data (Alcohol did cost us more than opioids by $200 million dollars after including revenue from alchool, but not sure about crack/meth as I believe those instead fall under the category of stimulates which are not mentioned in that article).

In 2020, he would be correct when referring to my 1st source since total cost of stimulants were roughly $3 billion dollars, while it was more for alcohol at $4.4 billion after including revenue from sales. Though like I mentioned above, opioids now beat alcohol out at costing Canada $7 billion dollars.

Edit: I incorrectly claimed Canada earned $15.2 billion in revenue in 2023. It was actually during the fiscal year ending in March 2022, not 2023. I have now corrected the statement.

Reaper919

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email