LAwLz

Sounds like you want something that doesn't exist, although I highly question why you'd want these particular things anyway. Sounds like you've built a very complicated list of requirements for seemingly no purpose. Or at the very least not a purpose you have made clear to us. You have already said no to Firefox anf Chromium based browsers. So what is there left? I would just like to add however that you can set a specific DNS in modern browsers. So if you are out and about you could just turn on a specific DNS that encrypts DNS queries. Personally though, I don't see my DNS queries being leaked as an "abysmal security situation".

Cheese is not a good source for protein. Sure it contains protein, but it contains a lot of fat as well. If we look at the typical cheese you will find that about 75% of the calories in it come from fat. less than 25% comes from protein. That might not necessarily be bad depending on what you need (maybe you need a lot of calories to gain mass?), but it will be pretty expensive in the long run. Of course it also depends on which cheese we're talking about, but I am making generalizations here. Want extra protein? Get some whey powder. It's like the ultimate food if you want extra protein. It might not be as fun as eating a bunch of cheese, but it will be cheaper and better for you.

Yes, but that was 400-500 years ago. Things have changed since then.

That's a bad solution because it will block a large portion of the screen. They should add a proper dismiss button. Otherwise they shouldn't even have the cookie question appear at all. There is no point in having the banner appear if you only have one choise anyway.

Read this: https://liamrosen.com/fitness.html

I disagree. To me that's like saying the goal of clothes is to not notice them, because for example a blue shirt might look bad to someone who doesn't like the color blue. So everyone should wear gray t-shirts and blue jeans. Of course, everyone is free to use perfumes however they want, but I think a lot of the bad rep and the "it's best to avoid it completely" comes from people misusing them. Outside of some extreme cases (people very sensitive to perfumes), I think most people will appreciate some subtle fragrances. The problem comes when perfumes are used in excess. Here are my rule for using fragrances, and I think people would appreciate them more if they were followed. 1) Don't use too much. It should be subtile. If you can be smelled from several meters away then you are doing it wrong. If you work an office job then the person sitting at the desk next to you should just barely be able to smell you, if at all. They should be able to smell you if you sit should to shoulder or hug you. Not as soon as you walk into the same room. Some fragrances are so strong that, IMO, even 1 spray is too much. In those cases it might be a good idea spray in the air and then walk through the mist. 2) Don't use them to cover up other smells. You will automatically use too much if you try to cover other smells. 3) Use it when appropriate. Don't put on a nice fragrance when wearing a hoodie and jeans. Use it when wearing some more formal attire. 4) Use deodorant. Always. If you have hit puberty then you need to use deodorant in your armpits. They serve a different purpose than perfumes. Personally I don't like the spray deodorant because people seem to use them too much, but the roll-on kind is a must. The goal of deodorant is to remove (not necessarily cover up) bad smells and prevent the development of new bad smells. This is especially true if you have shaved armpits (unshaved tend to not develop odors as easily). 5) Be classy with the fragrances. If you're 30 then don't buy some Axe body spray bottle that makes you smell like a teenager going to prom. It's better to buy a decent bottle of perfume and use it sparingly, than buying the same cheap and strong smelling stuff that everyone else use in excess. Please note that more expensive doesn't necessarily mean better either. Smells in general have a powerful way of creating associations and memories so if you pick the most basic smell changes are the people who smell you will be reminded of something else. It's better to be slight unique so the smell don't accidentally trigger and unpleasant association (like high school prom).

See: The purpose of perfume is not to cover up smells. It is to add smell to a lack of smell. I feel like I am going crazy here. Do people really think that perfume is to cover up body odors? Not only is that really wasteful, it doesn't even work unless you use A LOT of fragrance, and at that point, it will probably smell way too strong to be pleasant. Perfumes are not meant to cover bad smells. That may have been their purpose from a historical pov, but in post-industrial countries, I would argue that we do not have a need to cover bad body odors. We have showers and baths to remove bad odors. Perfumes still serve a purpose though, because after a shower you will not smell much of anything. You're a blank canvas after showering. The scent you got from the shower gel/soap will mostly get washed away during the shower, and the small part that remains after drying will quickly fade. The smell of perfumes, these days, are meant to add some excitement to an otherwise odorless thing. When used correctly (in my opinion) it should be fairly subtle. To me, perfume is like wearing jewelry, or lipstick. It's not something you should use every day (except deodorant, do use that every day, please). It's for special occasions.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of those are duplicates because some stores put up the same model of card with slightly different names on for example Amazon, and that counts as a "different card" in those systems counting the SKUs. In other cases though, it's just the OEM bumping the clock speed up like 100Mhz (maybe better binning?) and then introducing that as a new SKU. I wouldn't be surprised if the old SKU just gets discontinued as time goes on but never gets deleted from those systems like PCPartPicker. According to PCPartPicker, Asus has 12 different versions of the RTX 4090. Some have different coolers. Some are the same cooler but with ~100Mhz different clock speed. Some are the same card but in different colors (like one white and one black). Some are special/limited editions. I guess the number of unique SKUs quickly gets out of hand once you start doing OC versions of cards as well as different colors.

If you use perfume or cologne instead of showering you are doing it wrong. Perfume should be used in addition to showering, not instead of showering. The purpose isn't to cover up bad smells but rather add a nice smell to an otherwise neutral/lack of smell. I use it sparingly, but if you go to a party or some event it adds a nice flair. For everyday occurances I shower and put on deodorant. Please, if you are a teenager or older then shower at least every other day and put on deodorant. That should be the bare minimum.

I am not sure what you are saying. What are "good models", and 50% compared to what? The claim is that Qualcomm are lying in their benchmarks. That the numbers they presented were "baked", as in made up. The programs they ran were arm-native, as you can see by my list. It would be really stupid to say they lied in their benchmark and then run different benchmarks and go "see, I get different numbers". Reporting the results in a benchmark is not lying just because the numbers from a different benchmark aren't the same.

So to get back to Charlie's claims of Qualcomm lying and the Elite X only being able to achieve about "far sub-50%" of the performance Qualcomm claims. So let's go back and look at the performance claims Qualcomm made during the announcement, and then let's write down what performance numbers Charlie claims we will get in the final product (below half). It will be interesting to see who is closest with their numbers once we start seeing hardware in reviewer and consumer hands. My guess is that the official numbers from Qualcomm will be far closer than the numbers Charlie claims we will get. If I had to guess, Charlie will backpedal and cherry pick some very specific benchmarks that Qualcomm never even mentioned. Like maybe he will take one benchmark where Qualcomm compared their chip to an AMD chip and the Qualcomm chip won by 10%. Then Charlie will find a completely different program, benchmark than, and in that test the Snapdragon might lose a lot, so Charlie will say Qualcomm lied because "they said the Snapdragon was faster than the AMD chip, but it isn't in this test". Or maybe he will run non-arm native benchmarks and the performance will be worse, which would be fair. But that doesn't mean Qualcomm lied when they showed their performance numbers using arm-native software. 80-watt TDP config: With the 23-watt TDP config the numbers look like this: Does anyone believe that the numbers we get in the final products are around half of this? Because that is what Charlie claims.

I have seen that too. People who say mods aren't allowed to delete posts because of "freedom of speech". I have however also seen people who say "the laws of freedom of speech doesn't apply here", when the other person is talking about the concept (not the law) of freedom of speech. To elaborate, a lot of times when people mention "freedom of speech" they refer to the concept, the principle, not a specific law. It can be more of a philosophical stance than a legal stance. They aren't saying "you aren't legally allowed to delete my post". They are saying "Deleting my post may be legal, but it is the wrong thing to do because it goes against the idea of free exchange of ideas and debate that enriches public discourse". "Freedom of speech" can refer to laws, but it can also refer to a philosophical concept. It is important to keep that in mind when discussing "freedom of speech" so that everyone is aware of which thing someone is referring to when discussing. Otherwise, you can end up in a situation where two people are using the same words but internally they have different definitions, and thus misunderstandings occur. 9 out of 10 times when I talk about "freedom of speech", I refer to the philosophical concept. The thing that is defined in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not the thing defined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Apple sent out invites for their event on October 24. Qualcomm announced its event on June 2. I find it very hard to believe that Qualcomm rushed out their presentation so that they could get ahead of the M3 launch. Their event was planned long in advance. It's not like they could have rushed reporters and the media to Hawaii with a short notice. Seems more like a coincidence to me.

I think 2-5 sprays, especially if we are talking about perfume or eau de parfum, sounds like way too much. I'd say 1-2 sprays is enough. If you got a weaker concentration then it might be tolerable to go as far as 5 sprays. I would argue that if you can be smelt from more than a meter away then you use too much and come off as unkept and shabby. Of course it also depends on which smell you use. Lighter ones (think flowers, vanilla and such) are generally a bit more tolerable even in high concentrations compared to stuff like AXE and what teenage boys usually wear, or dark "musky" fragrances. I prefer fragrances are a nice surprise when you are close to a person (having a 1:1 conversation or hugging). They shouldn't be something you notice from across the room. All of this is of course just my opinion, but I don't think I am alone in thinking this way. Also, OP, this is one of those things you could just have googled. You would have gotten your answer a lot quicker, and probably better explained as well. But if you are still wondering then TetraSky is correct. It's a difference in concentration, which affects how long the smell lingers for. Please note that the fragrances also tend to last longer on clothes than they do on skin. So if you spray it on your clothes even something like eau de toilette will probably last all day, even though the rule of thumb says around 4 hours on skin.