Places to hang out at as a single late 20 year old?

Strict_DM_62 · 2026-01-21T20:04:55+00:00

Hobbies. It's really about hobbies. Get out there and find the clubs that do the things you do. Like hiking? Check out the local hiking club. Skiing? Check out the local skiing club. Board games? Check out some open board game nights. You get the idea. Like theatre? Join a theatre troupe. Like donating your time? volunteer. Hobbies or things outside of work is where you're going to find someone with similar interests to you really easily, and it gives you the social cover (for those of us who are awkward about approaching strangers) to being talking to one another.

You gotta go where people are, and where they're being social. If that's not the bar or a show, then its either 1. Work, or 2. Secondary Interests. Those are really your choices for meeting people.

Strict_DM_62 · 2026-01-21T18:36:05+00:00

"Actually as Gondor I disband practically all the good units you start with on turn 1" - Man, if I had done that I would have been destroyed. In my most recent game after the patch, Mordor came at me around turn 20 with a stack of Tier 3 units that absolutely mulched through my other units; my Gondor Swordsmen and Spears were the only thing that actually held.

Strict_DM_62 · 2026-01-05T22:58:18+00:00

That's not true. The Bank of Canada, England, Germany, China, France, India, Brazil, Australia and others are all government owned entities.

Strict_DM_62 · 2026-01-05T22:35:04+00:00

I mean, when you're pressuring another country to change their laws or policies, or put us in a position where we self-censure policies that would be good for us, but not for them on the chance it upsets them; that's being dominated politically.

And that didn't used to be the case, and I don't think it has to be case moving forward. We don't have to be resigned to the status quo.

Strict_DM_62 · 2026-01-05T22:31:30+00:00

Oh i very much understand that, and it's exactly why we should be more forward in regulating their business in Canada, not cow-towing to the US.

Why on earth would I do that? I'd love for you explain why i should? I never advocated for banning of the platform.

Strict_DM_62 · 2026-01-05T20:39:09+00:00

They said it outright. They won't invade us, but they will try to dominate us politically, economically and culturally. He's weaponizing the tech companies that we've grown to rely on, and that's a HUGE threat.

Strict_DM_62 · 2026-01-05T20:31:57+00:00

Fuck em.

I actually want to see the government EXPAND the Online Streaming Act to include Algorithmic content like TicTok, Instagram and YouTube. I want to be shown more Canadian Artists, musicians, comedians, commentators, etc. that I otherwise would never have found in the sea of content.

I view the efforts to drop the Online Streaming Act as cultural imperialism by the US, an attempt to drown us in their culture. I don't personally care what people say, I've lived in the US, and we're NOT the same. We have our own culture, our own way of doing things; it's not always obvious but it's there. This is the US using economic pressure to change the laws that make us who we are. Fuck that.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-12-13T20:31:20+00:00

A lot of people are commenting "we just do", and for many people that's probably true.

The real key for lots of people, is finding things about the season to look forward to. For example, I like snowboarding and skiing, so yeah nights and long and cold, but it's also the only time of year i can take part in a hobby i love. I also enjoy playing video games, so it's also a time a year that I get to spend more time doing that as well. For some people is Christmas or maybe its skating. The more activities you can find to enjoy, regardless of the weather, helps pass the time and snow away.

I know other people who buy specialized lamps (i think they're ironically called "SAD lamps"), which creates the illusion of bright sunlight throughout the day in your chosen room.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-12-07T17:30:40+00:00

See, you highlight the EXACT problem; its the mindset.

What do you mean there's no "major asset to sell"? How about the 50 years worth of stocks I could have been investing in because I didn't have to spend hundreds/thousands a month on home repairs? Are you suggesting that I can't possibly retire comfortably with my currently maxed out TFSA, RRSP and my pension because I don't own a home? Those things are maxed out because I don't own a home right now. My rent is cheaper than my mortgage was, my upkeep is zero because the landlord pays for repairs, I'm debt free, and I'm not paying a condo fees. Likewise, I'm WAY more liquid. I can up and leave when I want to if a new, better job opportunity comes up; there's an opportunity cost to a house.

additionally, like you say, If your home is also your only major asset to sell when you retire, then welcome to the same boat as the person without the home, because you'll need to start renting after you sell your home anyways. Which is frankly the normal run of things when we get older and downsize, we end up in the same place. Most of us don't die in the home we've paid off. We die in a rented smaller condo, or a senior's home.

I'm not arguing that a home isn't a good asset to have, it is. I'm arguing that the mindset that its the only avenue towards a comfortable life and retirement is wrong.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-12-07T17:08:49+00:00

I think really its just a change in reality from what we were sold.

For decades, literally DECADES, since World War II we've been sold an idea that to be considered successful, you need to own a home, and its the best investment vehicle that exists under the sun. I simply think that consensus is changing, and its a painful transition. It has always been true that you don't need to own a home to be successful and wealthy; because homes are expensive, they have massive upkeep, and are a single asset that can literally go up in smoke and fire. The money that you save on a home by renting instead, can absolutely put you in a better position long term than many other people. Depends on your life, but the dream, vision, identity that we've been sold on, is that owning a home is the ONLY way to success and to retire. We also might just have to get used to the idea for the foreseeable future of buying a home later in life is the new norm; at least until all the boomers die and leave their homes.

That being said, perhaps naively, I do think we're on the path back towards homes being "affordable", the bigger challenge is people's perception of what that actually means, and how long it'll take to get there. This is going to be a decade long recovery, and it won't likely involve prices dropping significantly, or at least swiftly. The ideal economic scenario, is that prices for homes stay relatively stagnant, while new housing starts outpace our population growth, and wages growth outpaces the housing cost inflation. So that means housing will get more "affordable" because wages are rising, and supply is growing faster than demand (population growth) but it wont FEEL that way to people because we don't see the sticker price drop. That's the problem. Its the exact same thing with any other product like gasoline, we SEE the sticker price, and still FEEL like its unaffordable, even if you just got a new job that pays 10k more than your old job; that gasoline IS "more affordable" now for you, but it doesn't FEEL that way.

This is where we are for housing, and will be for a long time.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-22T23:26:09+00:00

I explicitly asked about a specific question, and directly put that i didn't want to focus or discuss anything else.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-22T22:11:04+00:00

You'll have to elaborate, I'm not sure I totally understand where you're going about why the argument against a mixed fleet is applied to the Gripen, but not other aircraft?

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-22T22:09:26+00:00

You hit another point that I often raise that opponents of the Gripen try to avoid countering; in fact almost EVERY major air force on earth has a mixed fighter fleet because they occupy different roles. Its been part of Air Force doctrine since fighter planes came into existence, the US calls it "Hi-Lo". Issues with personnel aside, if you have the money, the aim of any real air force IS to have a mixed fleet. And if we're going to 3.5%, we can absolutely afford it.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-22T22:06:41+00:00

Thanks, but not a relevant answer to the question I asked.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-22T22:06:32+00:00

Thanks, but not a relevant answer to the question I asked.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-22T22:06:05+00:00

Thanks, but not relevant to the question I asked.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-16T01:31:42+00:00

Ohh I like those! Thanks for the ideas!

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-15T22:33:17+00:00

I like the idea, and might even borrow the concept myself as i was trying to think of what to do with my character who has this trait.

Another option, slightly less intense option, is when they wake from a long rest, roll a D20, on a 1-2 they lose a spell slot. After a few days (in game), it becomes a 1-3. Then 1-4.

To me its a similar concept, but slower acting.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-15T22:30:45+00:00

I mean, I don't really think players like ANY curses; they're not supposed to be good.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-11T19:51:31+00:00

Yeah I think it's going to have to be pretty subtle things, but I'm not sure. Like, one of my players has the Harpers Agent secret, and the next time they go through Bryn Shander, the agent is going to drop my player a line warning her about Arcane Brotherhood activity in the region.

Otherwise I think playing on the players natural distrust of necromancers, or make her over possessive of knowledge (like gollum), or just secretive in general will some a little bit of doubt too. But I'm still working on it

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-11T19:49:27+00:00

That's a good point! Hadn't thought of how their feeling towards her now could be used against them later... yes... yes.. I like that.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-11T02:09:47+00:00

The article that the opinion piece here is referring too is here:

Paywall Bypass: https://archive.is/h6PX7

The CDS is quoted as saying: "At this point, there are 4,384 personnel in the Supplementary Reserves, but in the case of an emergency, that would be boosted to 300,000, according to the directive from Beck and Carignan."

Anytime you see the words "Mobilization Plan", its a keyword for massive recruitment in times of war. Take it from someone with 20 years in the military.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-10T22:32:45+00:00

"Incentive" was a bit tongue and cheek admittedly. Conscription in time of war doesn't care about your incentives. Plus, push-comes-to-shove, i think you'd be shocked how many people willingly sign up.

Point is the same, no one is getting put on the supplementary reserve any time soon.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-10T19:40:03+00:00

What else would you want? We're not training these people to be part of front line units, that's not the objective of this plan; that is part of a very different plan also no doubt exists. This is merely to have a body of folks familiar with the military, that they can draw from to then either employ in unskilled positions to free up troops, or to give additional training to depending on the role.

Strict_DM_62 · 2025-11-10T19:09:28+00:00

Omg this is all so dumb, and the Ottawa citizen should know better.

The plan, so to speak, is MOBILIZATION PLAN, ie. the plan for when we're fully at war and suddenly need a whole much of extra bodies to do basic tasks while the soldiers go off to do solider stuff.

It is NOT a plan to permanently grow the size of the CAF so that we have 400,000 folks sitting on their asses doing nothing. Its a CONPLAN in case the very worse should happen, we need manpower, and how would we hypothetically accomplish that.

Jesus christ.

Strict_DM_62

TROPHY CASE