The Matrix is an interesting one because it really caught on with the DVD release. So that was most peoples first exposure to it, not the theatrical release. Even if incorrect, if that was the first way you saw it, it is likely how you consider it "should" look.
It's a bit disingenuous to imply The Matrix did not catch on until DVD release. The Matrix broke several (minor) box office records, was critically hailed, and an awards darling for the below the line technical awards.
Having said all that. One of the most interesting aspects of conversations around the true version of films and such is that just because of the way time works the vast majority of people's first experience with any film will definitely NOT be a in a theater.
I didn't meant to say no-one saw it theatrically but I probably did undersell it there.
The DVD was such a huge seller and coincided with the format really catching on. The Matrix was the "must have" DVD to show off the format and for many was likely one of the first DVDs they ever purchased.
It was also the go-to movie to show off DivX rips.
The popularity of The Matrix is closely linked with a surge in DVD popularity. IIRC DVD player prices became more affordable right around 2000 which opened it up to more people.
A hot exhaust could cause a fire in the woods during dry conditions. Would you consider this malicious behavior if you idled your car to take a photo and something smoldered you didn't notice? Negligent perhaps, but malicious?
The myth often states that water was unsafe to drink, so they drank beer. Suggesting water was never drank. Showing that water was regularly consumed does debunk the myth even if the truth is perhaps in the middle.
Perhaps, but you often see the myth written as a quick sentence or two before some beer related article. Academics may not be writing that, but lazy writers will repeat it often.
I left X because of how bad it got but BlueSky is also quite often useless in terms of good discussion. Recently any substack article posted is just filled with comments about how using substack supports Nazi ideology, no other discussion to be had. When it comes to anything related to AI the comments are all about stealing from artists. It is as if people just wait for the right buzzword to appear and post their canned response. Interesting posts that don't cause any controversy just don't have much engagement.
My qualms with Bluesky has less to do with ideological leanings (it’s true that there are ethics implications that a lot of people like to sweep under the rug and that should be pointed out) and more with how depressing it is to use, with an overwhelming sentiment of doom.
I’m not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend everything is just peachy (it’s not) but the doomerism is so strong and pervasive that I think it breeds complacency that when met with the sugar high of social media engagement reacts to form armchair activism (which breeds yet more complacency). All that time and energy may be better spent building each other up and encouraging action through an optimistic outlook.
The same trend is noticeable here on HN. Many threads are full of top-level posts that are just someone pattern-matching on a word they don't like in the headline and using it as an excuse to vent about whatever their pet issue is. Usually posts like that are magnets for zero-effort "me too"s and similar. Sometimes interesting discussions happen deeper in the threads, but it's disappointingly rare. It's really sad watching the entire internet turn into this, and I can't help but feel like places like Twitter/X and Bluesky are the source.
And there are schools that do year-round schedules, but the total time off is about the same. They will typically get a longer winter break, longer spring break, an additional fall break, and then a much shortened summer break, but those add up to about the same time off overall. I know many teachers who prefer that system, some because it means they get paychecks more consistently throughout the year, and also it gives you more spread out breaks and flexibility in taking trips instead of being locked in to summer/Christmas/one week in the spring.
The strongest push back to this schedule is in fact parents. The primary issue is once their kids are in different schools (high school / middle school / elementary) with different schedules this causes issues as kids are not longer on break at the same times. In addition summer camp programs are tied to the traditional schedule leaving kids in the year round schedule with fewer or no options.
In order to change it, you also need neighboring districts/communities/private schools/programming to all shift as well, otherwise it becomes too much of as hassle for parents & teachers.
I’m just saying that I 100% understand that you think it was “cheaper before” but there is no data to show that. I honestly feel the same.
Toyota Corolla was 13k in 2000: https://www.kbb.com/toyota/corolla/2000 - 25 years ago.
The core of my argument is this: today’s news manipulates perception by playing on emotions, which ultimately distorts the truth.
This article isn’t overly political, which makes it easier for us to debate without resorting to calling each other Nazis or communists. But when it comes to politics, distortion of truth happens all the time.
Bold of you to talk about distortion of truth when you are the main perpetrator of it in this thread.
Your claim of "only 10 models under $15k in 2005" is patently false, based on logic where the "Forbes 30 under 30" list is evidence that only 30 people exist younger than 30.
So yeah I guess your core argument is true, but you demonstrated by perpetuating it...
Please find a car which is missing. I was unable to find a single one.
And I also made the mistake with the list for 2025: there are 20 cars less than 25k in 2025.
See? You found problem with 2005 but you happily ignored that fact that I missed cars from 2025.
Why? Because it fits your world view. And that is how marketing works: you are convinced that cars are getting more expensive and no amount of data will change your view.
And posts on hubspot like this are paid by companies not making sub-$25k cars.
We haven't even started discussing your 2025 list, I'm just criticizing that you used a "top 10" list as a source saying "there were only 10 vehicles that existed meeting this criteria".
Meanwhile, if you look at your other sources, the Pontiac Sunfire link you posted shows that one did MSRP just over $15k, despite it being on your "top 10" list.
You really are in no position to criticize other people for "no amount of data will change your position", when all the data that you have presented so far is some combination of misleading, incorrect, or hallucinated.
Cheap, ubiquitous plastics have revolutionized every industry (tools, food, automotive, etc...). We wouldn't be able to consume anywhere close to current level without them.
Not saying that's a good thing. But giving up plastics (not just in our personal life, but across the entire supply chain we rely on) would probably be harder for the average American than giving up alcohol for a drunk.
Yeah giving up plastic would be hard but we have to _start_ pushing it in the right direction. A person in 2025 might find it basically impossible to avoid microplastics but if we make changes now someone in 2040 might be able to do it
