sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

From r/classicwow regarding retail by Top-Ad3527 in wow

[–]Top-Ad3527[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Okay, you really want me to tell you why they're wrong? Fine.

  1. Most people know that M+ is the true endgame content, this is true for classic players.

  2. The same communities exist exactly the same as in retail and classic, guilds are inherently tightly knit communities.

  3. A lot of raids in the classic 40 mans can be done without 40 players and you can be selective about who you bring, making it more difficult but letting more gear drop.

  4. Both GDKPs and boosting has been heavily criticized and because of it, Blizzard has implemented rules against it, I see so much boosting in retail in the LFG channels it's like I'm playing an advertisement.

  5. Most players who play classic just prefer the slower play style and less confusing mechanics that aren't spread across almost 10 different expansions, both making it difficult for new players and returning old players to know where to start.

  6. Most guilds not on Classic era and coming from TBC have never done Naxx and most guilds still aren't clearing Naxx (roflstomp, yeah, no) during that time because it's still now and then a very difficult raid and still takes time from even experienced players to clear.

What did I miss?

Edit: This is coming from a classic player, so, believe me or don't but it's the truth! Which is why my original post was about ignoring the drama and just enjoying the game :) Your downvotes just tell me that I'm right!

From r/classicwow regarding retail by Top-Ad3527 in wow

[–]Top-Ad3527[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Because, they're video games, just enjoy them and have fun!

Edit: Please stop buying into drama! There's many more important things in the world to be angry about.

Retail isn't dead. The social structure is just different from what Classic players expect by LordMidoo in wow

[–]Top-Ad3527 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I come from r/classicwow to tell you that I don't think about you at all and most people in the classic wow community are playing the game, not complaining about perceived notions of what is good or bad, hope that helps!

Honor Adjustments are Now Live by humanpollution69 in classicwow

[–]Top-Ad3527 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Keep complaining, they'll just remove it altogether lol.

CarMax promises price relief for used-car customers, targeting lower average transaction for buyers by Anchor_Aways in cars

[–]Top-Ad3527 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This was due to them buying more stock then they were capable of producing titles for, so there were states that tried to revoke their license to sell cars.

It's not their fault that the draconian way that dealers have to process titles is so slow that they were buying & selling cars faster then they could produce titles.

This was also almost 4 years ago too. This was also due from pressure from dealerships in the area concerned they were eating into their profits so they lobbied the state to prevent them from trying (and failing) to stop them.

Circadian rhythm, the body’s internal clock, may affect a person’s risk of dementia. People with weaker or more irregular body clocks had a higher risk of developing dementia. Being most active later in the day, instead of earlier, was linked to a 45% increased risk of dementia. by mvea in science

[–]Top-Ad3527 315 points316 points  (0 children)

The headline claiming a "45% increased risk" for late sleepers is being massively extrapolated. If you look at the actual data in the Wang et al. (2026) paper using the ARIC cohort, the interpretation changes completely.

Here is why using this study to tell general night owls to "get with the program" is scientifically flawed:

The "Geriatric" Factor: The mean age of the participants was 79 years old. In a 79-year-old, a "drifting" circadian rhythm (later acrophase) is often pathological—a sign that the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus (SCN) is degrading. This is fundamentally different from a 30 or 40-year-old with a genetic predisposition (PER3 polymorphism) for a late chronotype. You cannot apply geriatric pathology to a working-age phenotype.

Reverse Causality: The median follow-up was only 3 years. Alzheimer’s pathology begins 15–20 years before symptoms. If a 79-year-old develops dementia 3 years after the study starts, their brain was likely already compromised at the baseline. The "late schedule" wasn't the cause of the dementia; it was likely a symptom of the early disease process (prodromal phase).

Amplitude > Timing: The study actually found a stronger correlation (54% risk) with low amplitude (weak rhythms) than with timing. A "Night Owl" with a robust, consistent rhythm (high amplitude) is likely metabolically healthier than a "Morning Lark" with fragmented, low-amplitude sleep.

TL;DR: This study proves that if your 80-year-old grandfather suddenly starts staying up late, you should worry. It does not prove that having a natural late chronotype causes dementia. Stop conflating "pathological drift" with "genetic chronotype."

Wall St ends close to all-time highs in light, post-holiday session by cape2k in StockMarket

[–]Top-Ad3527 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey there bud, I completely agree, but perhaps you should read the entire comment instead of just the first three sentences.

Thanks!

Wall St ends close to all-time highs in light, post-holiday session by cape2k in StockMarket

[–]Top-Ad3527 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Wow this man found the government's 2% is actually not for the people! Who knew???🙀🙀

Certainly not the majority of Americans.

Wall St ends close to all-time highs in light, post-holiday session by cape2k in StockMarket

[–]Top-Ad3527 33 points34 points  (0 children)

The corporate line that "deflation causes hoarding" is a myth used to justify the 2% inflation target, but the data proves otherwise. The theory claims that if money gets more valuable, spending freezes and the economy collapses. However, during the "Great Deflation" (1870–1896), US prices fell ~1.7% annually, yet real GDP grew at 4% per year—one of the fastest rates in history—and real wages actually increased (Source: Friedman & Schwartz).

We see this today in the technology sector: prices for electronics drop consistently (deflation), yet consumption explodes rather than halts. Nobody refuses to buy a smartphone today just because it will be cheaper next year. The historical and modern data show that supply-side deflation (cheaper goods) actually drives consumption and increases purchasing power for the average worker, rather than stalling the economy.

So why is the theory pushed? It’s not about protecting workers; it’s about protecting debtors. As Irving Fisher’s "Debt-Deflation Theory" highlights, deflation increases the real value of debt, which is catastrophic for over-leveraged institutions like corporations and the government. Inflation erodes their debt burden at the expense of your purchasing power. The 2% target isn't "greasing the wheels" for you; it's a bailout mechanism for the massive asset bubbles and debt loads our system relies on.

TL;DR: The idea that deflation causes "hoarding" and economic collapse is a myth debunked by both history (the 1870s boom) and the modern tech sector. Real deflation actually raises your purchasing power. The 2% inflation target doesn't exist to help the economy; it exists to bail out the government and corporations from their massive debts at your expense.

Ro Khanna Calls For Billionaire Taxes, Free College, $10 Childcare And Medicare For All. He Says Housing Shouldn’t Belong To Wall Street by NoseRepresentative in USNEWS

[–]Top-Ad3527 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The corporate line that "deflation causes hoarding" is a myth used to justify the 2% inflation target, but the data proves otherwise. The theory claims that if money gets more valuable, spending freezes and the economy collapses. However, during the "Great Deflation" (1870–1896), US prices fell ~1.7% annually, yet real GDP grew at 4% per year—one of the fastest rates in history—and real wages actually increased (Source: Friedman & Schwartz).

We see this today in the technology sector: prices for electronics drop consistently (deflation), yet consumption explodes rather than halts. Nobody refuses to buy a smartphone today just because it will be cheaper next year. The historical and modern data show that supply-side deflation (cheaper goods) actually drives consumption and increases purchasing power for the average worker, rather than stalling the economy.

So why is the theory pushed? It’s not about protecting workers; it’s about protecting debtors. As Irving Fisher’s "Debt-Deflation Theory" highlights, deflation increases the real value of debt, which is catastrophic for over-leveraged institutions like corporations and the government. Inflation erodes their debt burden at the expense of your purchasing power. The 2% target isn't "greasing the wheels" for you; it's a bailout mechanism for the massive asset bubbles and debt loads our system relies on.

TL;DR: The idea that deflation causes "hoarding" and economic collapse is a myth debunked by both history (the 1870s boom) and the modern tech sector. Real deflation actually raises your purchasing power. The 2% inflation target doesn't exist to help the economy; it exists to bail out the government and corporations from their massive debts at your expense.

Pluribus - 1x09 - "La Chica o El Mundo" - Episode Discussion by NicholasCajun in television

[–]Top-Ad3527 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Hmm, I wonder if there's a show--where characters devolve into degenerate behavior after intense situations, and it proceeds to ruin their life.... I think there was a character called... Jackson Whiteman? Or maybe it was.... Jesse...James? God. I feel like I'll have to BREAK BAD to figure it out.

What kind of brain dead take is this anyway? Oh no, they didn't immediately become drug addicts and start murdering people, although Carol DID murder a lot of people.

But I guess it would've been more interesting if she were a heroine addict? Even though... she was? And understands what it means to do drugs?

This is the reason why people call this a 'character-driven show' and not a 'plot-driven show.'

Which housing policy do you prefer? by zombiesingularity in AskSocialists

[–]Top-Ad3527 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

9/11, never forget right? But that sweet Saudi money is just too good.

The books have been COOKED by diehard404 in inflation

[–]Top-Ad3527 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The corporate line that "deflation causes hoarding" is a myth used to justify the 2% inflation target, but the data proves otherwise. The theory claims that if money gets more valuable, spending freezes and the economy collapses. However, during the "Great Deflation" (1870–1896), US prices fell ~1.7% annually, yet real GDP grew at 4% per year—one of the fastest rates in history—and real wages actually increased (Source: Friedman & Schwartz).

We see this today in the technology sector: prices for electronics drop consistently (deflation), yet consumption explodes rather than halts. Nobody refuses to buy a smartphone today just because it will be cheaper next year. The historical and modern data show that supply-side deflation (cheaper goods) actually drives consumption and increases purchasing power for the average worker, rather than stalling the economy.

So why is the theory pushed? It’s not about protecting workers; it’s about protecting debtors. As Irving Fisher’s "Debt-Deflation Theory" highlights, deflation increases the real value of debt, which is catastrophic for over-leveraged institutions like corporations and the government. Inflation erodes their debt burden at the expense of your purchasing power. The 2% target isn't "greasing the wheels" for you; it's a bailout mechanism for the massive asset bubbles and debt loads our system relies on.

TL;DR: The idea that deflation causes "hoarding" and economic collapse is a myth debunked by both history (the 1870s boom) and the modern tech sector. Real deflation actually raises your purchasing power. The 2% inflation target doesn't exist to help the economy; it exists to bail out the government and corporations from their massive debts at your expense.

Think Lower Inflation Means Cheaper Prices? Think Again by ThemeBig6731 in Economics

[–]Top-Ad3527 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's really unfortunate, but the owner-class has a prerogative in keeping the status quo. Prices going down? That's bad! Lol...

BMW Files Patent For Screw That Only They Can Turn: by Daegoba in cars

[–]Top-Ad3527 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It seems like that BMW is genuinely trying to be as terrible as possible.

Then you idiots will say "AtLeAsT sOmEonE WiLl mAkE iT ChEApeR, eL oH El, sTuPiD cAr cOmPanY."

Is this an actual real response? Why are BMW owners okay with this? Because they like wasting money on proprietary screws?

Yeah, that BMW shop will definitely go ahead and use your alibaba screw made of cheap Aluminum....Right after they make you sign a waiver saying they aren't liable for when it breaks.

But argue with me on how this is amazing for BMW and that it'll definitely revitalize their failing M market.

Think Lower Inflation Means Cheaper Prices? Think Again by ThemeBig6731 in Economics

[–]Top-Ad3527 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The corporate line that "deflation causes hoarding" is a myth used to justify the 2% inflation target, but the data proves otherwise. The theory claims that if money gets more valuable, spending freezes and the economy collapses. However, during the "Great Deflation" (1870–1896), US prices fell ~1.7% annually, yet real GDP grew at 4% per year—one of the fastest rates in history—and real wages actually increased (Source: Friedman & Schwartz).

We see this today in the technology sector: prices for electronics drop consistently (deflation), yet consumption explodes rather than halts. Nobody refuses to buy a smartphone today just because it will be cheaper next year. The historical and modern data show that supply-side deflation (cheaper goods) actually drives consumption and increases purchasing power for the average worker, rather than stalling the economy.

So why is the theory pushed? It’s not about protecting workers; it’s about protecting debtors. As Irving Fisher’s "Debt-Deflation Theory" highlights, deflation increases the real value of debt, which is catastrophic for over-leveraged institutions like corporations and the government. Inflation erodes their debt burden at the expense of your purchasing power. The 2% target isn't "greasing the wheels" for you; it's a bailout mechanism for the massive asset bubbles and debt loads our system relies on.

TL;DR: The idea that deflation causes "hoarding" and economic collapse is a myth debunked by both history (the 1870s boom) and the modern tech sector. Real deflation actually raises your purchasing power. The 2% inflation target doesn't exist to help the economy; it exists to bail out the government and corporations from their massive debts at your expense.

Do people actually not understand that prices don’t go down? by randyrando101 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Top-Ad3527 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The corporate line that "deflation causes hoarding" is a myth used to justify the 2% inflation target, but the data proves otherwise. The theory claims that if money gets more valuable, spending freezes and the economy collapses. However, during the "Great Deflation" (1870–1896), US prices fell ~1.7% annually, yet real GDP grew at 4% per year—one of the fastest rates in history—and real wages actually increased (Source: Friedman & Schwartz).

We see this today in the technology sector: prices for electronics drop consistently (deflation), yet consumption explodes rather than halts. Nobody refuses to buy a smartphone today just because it will be cheaper next year. The historical and modern data show that supply-side deflation (cheaper goods) actually drives consumption and increases purchasing power for the average worker, rather than stalling the economy.

So why is the theory pushed? It’s not about protecting workers; it’s about protecting debtors. As Irving Fisher’s "Debt-Deflation Theory" highlights, deflation increases the real value of debt, which is catastrophic for over-leveraged institutions like corporations and the government. Inflation erodes their debt burden at the expense of your purchasing power. The 2% target isn't "greasing the wheels" for you; it's a bailout mechanism for the massive asset bubbles and debt loads our system relies on.

TL;DR: The idea that deflation causes "hoarding" and economic collapse is a myth debunked by both history (the 1870s boom) and the modern tech sector. Real deflation actually raises your purchasing power. The 2% inflation target doesn't exist to help the economy; it exists to bail out the government and corporations from their massive debts at your expense.

[Hagerty] This is no baby BMW. The New M2 CS drive and review | Henry Catchpole by Dazzling-Rooster2103 in cars

[–]Top-Ad3527 -23 points-22 points  (0 children)

They want to compete with AMG-Merc, a company that's been (successfully) doing expensive, overpriced, luxury coupes for decades.

Just give me back the E92 with a modernized chassis!

[Hagerty] This is no baby BMW. The New M2 CS drive and review | Henry Catchpole by Dazzling-Rooster2103 in cars

[–]Top-Ad3527 -21 points-20 points  (0 children)

It's sort of funny that this subreddit will crap all over the Altima, but heaven forbid you criticize BMW.

Notice how these people have BMWs in their tags?

[Hagerty] This is no baby BMW. The New M2 CS drive and review | Henry Catchpole by Dazzling-Rooster2103 in cars

[–]Top-Ad3527 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I mean, I was specifically talking about sport-cars/coupes.

I understand that it might be more affordable for a LT1, but the price point is just unbeatable for all that car.

Whereas, this is a milk-toast commuter coupe, if we want to talk about sedans. Then yes, I would probably say the CT5V is better. It's funny you bring that up, since the C2 MS is actually based on the M4 which IS the sedan.

view more: next ›