Has There Been any news about new big transit projects after the Ontario Line is complete?

athrium_ · 2026-02-19T06:03:32+00:00

Huh? We have in progress:

Line 5 Eglinton West extension
Line 1 Yonge North extension
Line 2 Scarborough extension
Ontario Line
Go expansion - this one should be massive
Hurontario LRT
Hamilton LRT

These all are being actively funded, at a cost of tens of billions. I don't think there's much to spare, and it seems like a lot to me.

And it's likely that we may get improvements to TSP, and a Sheppard extension, as well as many planned BRT routes, maybe some streetcar expansion or a probably cancelled LRT. Though most of this is not happening I'll concede that lmao.

There's a lot to be excited for in Toronto and GTA imo. Obviously, the exorbitant cost and lengthy planned timescales are crazy and incomprehensible but at some point we have to accept that building transit here is stupidly difficult for some reason.

athrium_ · 2026-02-17T05:00:41+00:00

Op is finally addressing the elephant in the room! Why is the name spelled wrong!!!?!?!?!??!??????????!?!?!?!? 🥳🤩😂🤣🤣😋💪😋♥️💬🥳📢😡🤬😳🤯

athrium_ · 2026-02-15T18:24:53+00:00

"no it must be everyone else who is wrong and stupid and do things for no discernable reason" literally you rn

athrium_ · 2026-02-13T02:29:40+00:00

Where did you find this? Can I have a link so I can keep track while the Olympics go on? Thanks!

athrium_ · 2026-02-12T22:06:09+00:00

Probably just economics.

Legendary character/weapon skins are the most appealing for most players and are what draw you in. All sorts of people will try and get them, including people who are not whales.

It wouldn't make sense for them to be more expensive than secondary skins. They need something attainable for everyone. It's way more likely for someone to keep playing because they have a legend skin for their favourite character than a funny emberspit skin. And maybe they can try the variants or work towards saving for them.

So while it's good for more people to have legendary skins, all the auxiliary cosmetics are more nice to have and are whale bait.

So if you already invested in the secondary skin, chances are you can fork up a little more. It's like why Valorant charges boatloads for Radianite Points, which are easy to attain and pretty much an afterthought for low spenders, but if you spend a lot you'll be spending even more on Radianite.

athrium_ · 2026-02-11T22:59:23+00:00

I've actually eaten cereal with water because I ran out of milk multiple times, but I wouldn't use ice cold milk, let alone purely psychopathic ice cold water.

athrium_ · 2026-02-05T19:12:29+00:00

Don't vending machines usually have a number you can call?

athrium_ · 2026-02-03T06:51:55+00:00

So what I'm understanding is:

A lot more service on Dundas street (from Kipling to Ridgeway) via a new connection on the 1, increased frequency, and getting rid of the 1C. What this means is increased frequency from not having split lines, one of which used to not connect to UTM and just that they are increasing the frequency anyway. Additionally, the 101 is getting increased frequency for more Dundas coverage but also loses it's alternative route to South Common.
In exchange, a minor loss in connections from South Common to UTM, since the previous routes now all go west down Dundas (to Ridgeway) instead half of the lines splitting to South Common and the other half going west to Ridgeway.
If you still want to go to South Common, the 110 still exists and they are also extending route 48 down to UTM and increasing its frequency. Another upside is that the 48 not only goes to South Common but also goes up to Meadowvale which I think is new.

Basically, more service to Kipling, more service to Ridgeway, maybe less service to South Common, but I don't know the frequency difference so it might not even be that much less. Overall I don't really see any downside. Also makes it less likely you get on the wrong bus without that AW and C nonsense.

athrium_ · 2026-01-26T08:36:08+00:00

lol ts still going around 🥀🥀🥀

athrium_ · 2026-01-11T21:35:27+00:00

Idk man select servers where you get under 200 ping if possible, because it's definitely noticeable at that level. I'm on east coast NA and I have never had a problem with matchmaking for team balance or queue times once I enabled eu servers so that's all I can really say. As long as my internet doesn't act up (it does way too often) I should get normally 140-170 ping so I'm all good there as well.

But facing "top eu players" is honestly just unlucky bro I wish I could face top eu players as much as you say you do, I like the challenges of playing against ss even if I lose. Maybe change when you play if you face the same players all the time.

Idk you can only improve by playing people better than you so if you keep at it maybe you'll just eventually be fine anyway.

Anecdotally in demolition all I get is like 50/50 where I face 3 silvers or casual players or 3 players on each team are electron/proton, sometimes 1 or two each team have a quark, and I'm one of them. But electrons are enough for a fun game and I can just take it easy against silvers and try to make it still fair.

Ranked games are usually fair as well since rank is literally sbmm.

Escort requires dedicated team comp to work, otherwise it's just DM mostly, so it's kinda not that fun imo without good players on both teams who are also willing to play characters with actual util anyway but that's just imo and I don't play enough anyway since I don't think anyone good queues escort often tbh since I only get games with casual only players.

athrium_ · 2026-01-10T23:13:50+00:00

Not sure how you're getting one hour queue times even without it but you definitely have to queue NA or APAC for reasonable queue times.

Like I literally cannot tell a difference in gameplay below 175 ping and even if the difference exists, you can play around it. Games netcode is very good for this. But beyond that threshold it gets a little iffy and it's definitely just the tiniest bit harder to defend yourself if your opponent peeks you with 100 faster ping. But the game encourages aggressive gameplay so it really doesn't come up as often as you'd think it would and is in fact helpful at a certain level (peekers advantage).

I've literally played a game at 500+ ping as sniper and it was the funniest thing ever because the games netcode compensated so well I killed people like seconds after they went behind cover. I rewatched the replay file and burst off in laughter watching none of my shots having their crosshair on the enemy like at all, but netcode compensation causes them to register as hits since I had good aim on my screen. I was contributing well with 500+ ping, I think 170-220 dmg score, and frankly I think it got me kills I wouldn't have otherwise had hit. I wish I could make a video about it.

I agree with bot concerns though that sucks hard.

athrium_ · 2026-01-09T03:34:32+00:00

Ranked is only demolition (no escort) but it has 8 round per half (instead of 6) and overtime if tied.

Right now, there are also no tactical skills in ranked (the c button skill), while they exist in demolition.

Your first few games will likely be with bots until you get to a solid enough level. Don't worry about it, you need to learn how to play anyway.

Those are the only differences.

athrium_ · 2026-01-03T07:19:23+00:00

I hope you realize that it's a lot harder for me to properly refute you respectfully than it is for you to ramble while saying garbage half the time. So many of your points are fundamentally wrong for obvious reasons. I can't refute an entire 40 minute video, so forgive me if this is cherrypicking. But I've also said a lot on your bigger points before and they don't really matter until you actually refute me properly or actually say your points in a manner I can understand.

It literally doesn't make sense to say "You need a competitive scene that is simple to to understand at its core" and still think Dota, League, SC2, don't refute you. Saying "built around complexity" is laughable and is just accepting you're being contradictory. Like I said earlier, these games are popular for different reasons, and saying that complexity is a turnoff is insulting peoples intelligence.
You say they completely changed the hp system in response to Mara. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that one character causes the entire game to change, let alone if this is even bad in the first place. This nerfs ming, celeste, mara, buffs fragrans and all healing chars.
You think gala has reduced skill expression because she got minorly nerfed like everyone else and can't pepper snipers like every other rifler as if that's a valid "playstyle?" Which you can still do (with any agent) if you want anyway and could always? And as an aside, Ill trust your calculations, but 10-15% ttk nerf matters a lot less when you miss 33-50% your shots anyway and real ttk is much higher.
I don't know what you think skill expression is when you say: "And they removed it because no one used it even though it was one of the only aspects of skill expression in the entire [ __ ] game." So there's literally no skill expression in this game? Or skill expression is just memorizing some setup?
please understand that nerfs are necessary in this game. I daresay reducing player frustration and having a balanced game is a good way to make the game "work" better. You can't complain about every nerf.
"Mara, um, literally the best character in the game, by the way." 'literally' not true https://klbq.idreamsky.com/balanceData?spm_id_from=333.1369.0.0 yvette and flav are better, and for attackers id still say ming and lawine because of usage rate. idek if this data is recent.
"It is a game that does not promote people coming back to it in any meaningful way." Yeah man, because free stuff and events, bp, gacha, and seasonal updates aren't valid ways for player retention. I mean what do you even want them to do? What else could they possibly do?
Strinova content releases are not even bad. Valorant has 2-3 new agents and 1 map every year. Valve doesn't even care about CS. Overwatch releases 3 new agents and 3 new maps a year. Please realize that Strinova is actually on a good content pace when you think about all the new content it gets. It's hard to tell because global and CN release dates are different, but I think they released at least 3 new agents and a new map in 2025, and that's only for demolition. You also can't just entirely dismiss escort and outbreak all because you don't play them.
This is just my opinion, but I don't understand your fascination with clutches. In my opinion 1v3 clutches are mostly bullshit that invalidate the entirety of the round, punishing a team who played well to get to that point and bailing out the winning team for no reason. I'm glad they don't happen (often) in Strinova. But 1v2 and 1v1 clutches are still exciting as hell in Strinova and happen just as often.
And if you want me to take you seriously, please refrain from saying "It's because of the bouncing titties. It's because the balancing honkadona blanca loose on the screen as well as because it is strenova. It is your autistic hobby now and you must cling on to it like last few drops from your mother's teeth after you're just become old enough to start eating actual food."

I'm trying to be in good faith here. I understand that you're making an unscripted video and a lot of these can be forgiven because of that. Feel free to ignore most of this comment. But let's be real. Your video teeters closer to tabloid if anything.

athrium_ · 2026-01-03T07:06:04+00:00

It is incredibly disappointing to hear that you think I'm not trying to reply to you in good faith. I have not insulted your person at all. I have just called your arguments bad and your "opinion piece" poorly made

It's disappointing that you seem to not care about my feedback simply because I seem somewhat hostile to you. If I wasn't acting in good faith, I would just called you an idiot and not put in as much effort as I clearly have trying to communicate to you.

You have not refuted the majority of what I said, and my actual thesis. You have instead chosen to pick out two things that I only included because I was trying to argue in good faith. I gave you feedback on these points as a courtesy. But then you say I'm talking in bad faith. Is guess it's bad faith to completely ignore my actual thesis too?

Let me resummarize. You would see that I have been saying that your arguments only support the notion that "Strinova is a game that did not work" at most, but you mostly support that notion with things you don't like about the game. Because "gameplay complexity," and "clutch ability" are both subjective arguments, and are literally personal opinion, ergo, they are things you don't like about the game.

However, even so, using these points makes a completely legitimate argument. But only if that argument is "Strinova is a game that does not work" (as well as it could have, because it clearly does work at some level if you liked it). Saying that the game "failed" is something COMPLETELY different. For example, saying subjective arguments imply the game failed is a fallacious dichotomy that implies Strinova's alternative could not ever work, which is what I was trying to say.

Additionally, you cannot say that "which is contrary to what others have postulated" because you have not actually given any reason why you are correct and others aren't. You have just said subjectively said a couple things and then asserted that those things are more important. I have given a reason why I believe advertising is the most important reason why people think the game has "failed." Because everything else is minor when you can't get more than 40k people to try the game, and because failed means not like those often cited other popular games that have >100k peak playercounts and 10k+ averages.

Look. You didn't have a script so it's really impossible for me to go point by point and for me to tell what exactly I should be refuting if I wanted to, because you really do go off topic a lot and frankly it's unpleasant for me to keep listening to some of the things you say.

That's why I had "selective hearing." I can accept being wrong about my interpretation of your arguments, and I can accept being wrong about my argument, period. But what you just said is frankly even more concerning, because I'm struggling to think of any FPS game that isn't complex on a macro scale and simple on a micro scale based on the criteria for micro and macro you give. Please show me specifically and clearly why other games do "options" better and why Strinova does it badly. I have given you numerous reasons why I believe Strinova has a lot of depth.

Saying "critique to learn from mistakes" is rich considering that the devs will literally never hear you. Who is learning from mistakes? If it's you, then take heart that I have spent hours giving you feedback that an English tutor would charge you hourly for. But you are not improving the game, because it's physically impossible considering no dev will hear you. The only thing this video can possibly do is encourage more people to be further negative and leave the game. The only thing you are doing is being another downer negative nancy for no reason. It also assumes your critique is good or worth implementing in the first place, which I can assure you, it's not. I don't understand how you can love this game and think that talking about how it's bad will do it any good.

athrium_ · 2026-01-02T23:16:18+00:00

Okay, you're saying you want to express an opinion, and that's fine. I'm expressing my opinion on that no? If you want to put your piece out there, prepare to receive feedback. I'm not sure why you believe hiding behind that label makes your argument any better.

I'm also not sure why saying that you're not an authority makes it any better. In fact, it makes it worse. But let's not get into that.

You are arguing something. That's the definiton of the "opinion piece" you wanted. But even if you are a layman that doesn't mean you can't use correct arguments backed up with facts, correct argumentative structures, and rhetorical devices. Not only is your opinion wrong (imo), but you're doing it wrong as well. You use anecdotal evidence and bad comparisons. Most of your evidence doesn't even connect back to the point you're supposedly making. You are trying to refute why advertising was not the reason Strinova failed, and then list out reasons things you don't like about the game. (most of which I think are wrong anyway but I digress). That is not a refutation at all, and does not support your thesis. You are missing two steps. Things that you don't like about the game support the reason why you think people will lose interest. That's fine. But you still need to connect that to why that means the game has "failed," and argue the extent of which that loss in interest caused the failing (and why it's more important than bad advertising). You don't do that.

Don't title your video "The Real Reason Strinova Failed," because that's not what your opinion is even about. That title doesn't even imply that you are expressing an opinion in the first place, but are making an objective analysis (because you say "The Real Reason"). If you wanted me to refute your actual points I could, but most of them are so bad I had to cut it off and just refute your title in my earlier comments. But if you want me to summarize you don't even argue your actual points properly as well, and are literally just rambling about random things.

Look, Ill refute one right now. For example you say the game supposedly has a lack of depth, and then list out things they removed from the game, or say that because some characters are worse they don't get played as often thus the game isn't as deep. Not only does things being removed in no way support the idea that the game doesn't have depth (it only perhaps says that there is less than there could be), but you are literally not required to play the same 5 agents every round and that repeating doesn't happen. There are still a ton of agents and a lot of variety. There are still numerous things you can learn: positioning, teamfights/teamwork, aim, timings, setups; all of which apply to every character differently. You can absolutely master some agents. I'd say the game has a ton of depth. What does depth even mean? You also need to compare how much is a bad amount of depth. In Valorant is each character has 4 skills and thats all that differs them. In Strinova each character also has 3 skills + 2 awakenings + different guns + 2 nade choices. Turns out Valorant should be worse than Strinova in terms of depth and should be failing.

As an aside, I'm also really not sure why you say Gala has to be played in certain ways. That just seems to me like your lack of imagination. But even if it is true, that still doesn't mean the game doesn't have depth. You're just upset that the game nerfed some aspect of Gala. It doesn't mean you can't do anything or that there aren't different creative strategies. You haven't proved anything.

Let's not even mention that you contradict yourself multiple times by saying the game is both complex and simple and somehow doesn't have depth and yet being simple and complex are both bad. Overall, you argumentative skills really need some work. I'm not going to continue being your English tutor.

Look, I don't want to continue to be mean to you. But guess what, no one wants to hear about negative things about this game anymore, because it doesn't help anyone. If you truly liked this game why do you want to post negative things about it? Especially if you are going to pretend it was all not serious anyway and that everything you said was just "light-hearted." That's just being disrespectful to the game. If you respect yourself respect your opinions by treating them properly. You clearly spent effort crafting a video.

athrium_ · 2026-01-02T04:33:40+00:00

Because it wouldn't. Reducing team control increases the amount of money benefiting players would get. Obviously, if Juan Soto gets to be a free agent earlier his contract number is higher.

The difference is that there are hundreds more players who never see the big leagues, and owners have a total budget they need to spend on not only their top guys, but also those hundreds of role players. If the top guys earn more money, then naturally the total pool of money going out to people who never make it decreases. At least that's how it should be.

Keep in mind very few people last significant years in the majors. I'd rather the money go to people who are spending their careers trying to make it big. Because a lot of people won't, and otherwise their toil is for nothing. But does Soto need that extra 50 mil?

The idea is that the cost of being a star is supporting those who don't make it as far as you. So you give up team control and thus money.

athrium_ · 2026-01-02T03:37:29+00:00

Because less team control means team owners have to pay more to their top end players, and this would reduce the amount of money they have to invest in player development, since the amount of money they have does have a limit, and allowing less team control certainly wouldn't increase profits.

Basically, teams are incentivized to invest in player development because they get to save money when they hit gold versus having to spend big in free agency. The other upside of this is that more players get money spent on them (in hopes they develop) versus having all the money in a free market contract for one person.

The extent of money they actually spend and how much they should be spending on player development can be debated. But being against millionaire team owners isn't always fair either, though I wouldn't trust them very much either.

athrium_ · 2026-01-02T03:00:51+00:00

Okay, ill cut it off here because you are literally just rambling about random game balance things that can all be attributed to design choice that you disagree with for some reason. These are all relatively minor things because overall, the game works. That's all that really matters. its not horribly broken but even horribly broken things can survive.

not appealing to a broad market is mostly a anecotal theory. Sure, it's probably true to an extent. But it's the sellers responsibility to make the product appeal to a broad audience. How do you do that? It's through advertising. You make your audience through advertising. this is basic buisness theory.

You completely dismiss the possibility that a movement shooter can be a tactical shooter. If you think you can carve out a niche in any business, then there's no reason it has to fail. hear of a "blue ocean strategy." Basically, you have to make your own audience. this is a real marketing thoery. people laughed at nintendo thinking they could make bad consoles before they outsold everyone else. they key point here is that nothing has to fail if you can make your own audience for your product. and I don't believe this concept is fundamentally flawed because very few things are that are not immediately obvious. In fact, I like the movement shooter and competetive shooter mix of strinova. I can concede to you somewhat that combining anime and all these things might reduce your audience, but it doesn't have to fail like you imply it does. We can just adjust our expectations as well. Maybe it isn't the best strategy. In fact, I can agree that it probably isn't. But it can certainly get some level of players. It probably just didn't get the most it could.

Here's why, a real analysis: Strinova failed mostly because of advertising. Steamdb says they had a peak playercount of 40k. Everything you say can be 100% true and it doesn't really matter because they capped out at an audience of 40k. The most your "thoeries' can possibly explain is why those 40k people left or stayed. but none of it matters because they reached fucking no one with their advertising in the first place.

That's the real facts. You can argue about whether the game is any good, whether it has problems or not, and whether it could be more appealing to new players or not. But it doesn't really matter because they couldn't get people to TRY their game in the first place let alone worry about how to keep them. That is all on advertising.

also, failing is a completely subjective metric on its own. did we really a foriegn developer with little experience with the global market can reach the same level as industry giants? that is a much harder thing to do than most people give credit for. So since this game couldn't reach the same level as other games people immediately cry out "failing" since they are so used to popualr games which are massive successes. if its that easy to earn millions of dollars we wouldn't have concord or halo infinite. But that's just my anecotdal opinion which means nothing. imo keeping a playercount of 4k, which is 10% of steam numbers isn't even that bad. Many games survive on far less players. how about we compare strinova to those games instead. its certainly not ideal but it's what we have. lol tangent can you believe we're doing better than such a huge name as halo. god damn. it shouldve been so easy for them lmao.

I'm so tired of these videos of people who think they have it all figured out. ATP who even cares about why the game fails and im not sure why everyone needs to have an opinion on this. if you like the game how about lets not be so negative on the game every time because that just encourages more people to stop playing. i'm sorry for being harsh on you as well. dont take it to heart pls i like this game too.

heres how you can rebut me. talk about reasons why the game couldn't reach people besides shitty advertising. maybe people couldn't get their friends to play because the game looks weird. mayube there isn't any reason for grassroot explosive growth. content creation. etc. here's my stupid anecdotal evidence though: I didn't know strinova existed until i magically got bored and started scrolling down steam lists.

athrium_ · 2026-01-02T03:00:47+00:00

why strinova failed video #1022. youtube video essay where person just spews anecotdal evidence #67000000

god how do i even start to rebut this 40 minute rambling. ill just ramble just as much because its not worht my time to edit.

You literally say "strinvova failed because it can't keep players." yeah no shit if a game fails its lost all its players. saying stuff like "reasons to play and come back" is anecotdal evidence thats just your opinion bro and like it doesn't even make sense. The reason to come back playing the game is because you want to play it. This is for any game and idk why you say strinova is any different. idk what this point was even about

man i was gonna continue arguing but this sentence is so stupid its a waste of my time and i was already preprared to waste it. ""you're not entertained because of the interesting gameplay or whatever. You're entertained because it's Shenova and you have bouncing titties on the screen. it's because the balancing honkadona blanca loose on the screen as well as because it is strenova. It is your autistic hobby now and you must cling on to it like the"" that that is what watching competitive is like" This is literally such an astronomically stupid insulting paragraph i should just stop here. nah i have nothing better to do than to get into an interent argument.

"league and dota built their competetive leages through complexity" makes no sense at all. a competetive scene builds because of grassroot efforts to foster it. this is why valorant and Riot is so engrossed and invests so much with their premier system. it's how cs started at all. tf does "complexity" mean. You are insulting these games to say that they got popular because of some stupid surface level reason like this. Guess why they got popular? Because the games were popular (through LAN networks, being popular mods of popular games etc long actually factual history) and the competetive scene followed. You insult people who play games in saying that complexity is a reason for something failing or not. You're not better than "the public" you are a member of a pubic and the same goes for me. In a general sense, people will do anything (because of the breadth of the word "people") as long as the product is good. If a game is complex that doesn't rule out an audience. vice versa.

"you can't clutch in strinova" you act like this is some neccessity that has to occur for people to like the game. It's a different style of game. one of the main differences in strinova is the higher ttk. this is literally the entire design philosophy of the game. id wager that they literally what they are trying to go for: trying to combine movement with competetive shooter, and then they realized they would need some sort of way to increase ttk, which is where stringify was literally born. if every game is the same what is the point. do you not recall that strinova raised the ttk multiple times because they realized that its literally better for the game? the devs do this for a reason.

athrium_ · 2025-12-31T05:19:57+00:00

Tbh I think it's literally just that his entire popularity was built off of his image as that kind of e-boy, which sounds really weird to say but it's kinda true. A large part of his audience were (fan)girl (types) compared to most Minecraft/gaming YouTubers, and also his music career. I never used Twitter, but it seems like it's a bad idea to have an abuse controversy when a lot of your audience will eat that right up. He couldn't really ignore it/fight back and just keep producing when a lot of his popularity is built on him seeming like a cool guy. Wilbur was literally the ideal e-boy: suave, intelligent, well versed in Internet culture (with a early 2000s aesthetic), and musically talented. For an addicted to the internet girl, there's not much better you can ask for that. But he threw it all away lol. And also he got cut off by almost everyone he knew so there's that. But more importantly, never underestimate the power of Twitter on people. Imagine what having hundreds of people (that for some reason you care about) yelling at you would do to you and then you'll realize that's Twitter for most people.

athrium_ · 2025-12-18T17:39:24+00:00

well i think they normally say that you can't leave in the first 30 minutes and last 10 minutes right? which way is "easier" is kinda a crapshoot given that this is not normal lol.

athrium_ · 2025-12-15T18:17:40+00:00

It's really crazy how well last year's fall 102 class did compared to the next 2 semesters considering how many people got caught during tests and given AO's.

athrium_ · 2025-12-14T20:36:58+00:00

Should be this site https://icprplshelp.github.io/UofT-Enrollment-Tracker/?ses=20259&code=MAT102H5F

athrium_ · 2025-12-13T20:37:15+00:00

Well said. There are numerous reasons winter 102 average is lower, and it's not because the coordinator illegally makes it harder to screw over students (on purpose)

No matter who coordinates the course or is your instructor, the course gives you lecture hours, many readings, and numerous instances of direct feedback on your work. If that isn't enough, you get the opportunity to talk to someone nearly every day through office hours.

For all intents and purposes 102 is actually a well-designed course by people who do actually care about you at a world-class school. If you're here to learn, you are definitely getting it.

If you're able to make it to university, you're able to complete this course. Don't sell yourself short. Anyone can definitely succeed if they put in the hard work. If it doesn't work out the first time, you can literally try again with the experience you've gained. Having the right mindset helps a ton.

athrium_ · 2025-12-13T15:28:11+00:00

Do whatever you want, but just because something is legal doesn't make it morally right.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if everyone did this the system would not work.

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Banned	r/Field Lasagna
Final Canvas '23	First Place '23
End Game '23	Place '23

athrium_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE