Mihle

No Intel showed what they showed, people reported on it. Intel being unclear on exactly what was shown is what people are pointing at as being misleading.
 
They set an expectation by showing it running 5Ghz, Intel did that no one else. Are we really going to play shoot the messenger?

No, if you need 100W more than a 1080 for similar performance it's called having a bad performance per watt. The performance of Vega 64 was quite decent, but the performance of all Vega cards isn't what's bringing them down.

It's not an idea from the bureaucrats. It's an idea that comes from the national governments. Without the EU, we'd just have two dozen different versions of this being worked on by the various countries, making the whole situation far worse for businesses and consumers.

Close to fuck all from a laymen's perspective.  it appears many people here have not actually read the directive or how it applies. 
I don't claim to be all knowing, but it certainly doesn read the way people are talking about it.  It' not compulsory and you can only be found guilty of copyright infringement if your website falls within a distinct parameter.  I.E it has to be making money from the content, the content has to be promoted by the website and the website has to be organizing it into searchable content.  Basically the only websites that fit this definition are piracy websites.
 
EDIT: I have gone into greater detail with links in this thread:
 

There is a lot of hate for various things on these forums.  People just don't how to look past the superficial and recognize the difference between hating something for ideological or personal reasons and hating something because it is demonstrably a failure/dangerous.
 
I personally have a slightly right lean to me when it comes to social intervention and political control, this leads me to not like many of the things the EU does. However I think people would have to be fairly immature in their understanding of governance and corporate functioning to believe the whole system is outright a failure or dangerous.
 
From what I've read so far this is mostly a storm in a tea cup.   A few people are getting their nickers in a knot because websites that survive using obvious copyright infringement are going to find it harder to defend themselves. 

There is a lot of hate for the EU, either by the British that hate France and Germany or by the countries that had financial problems, mostly caused by themselves, or even the usual countries that are in EU but always are against everything EU does.
 
EU ideas about copyright have also been a disaster but blaming EU as an institution is stupid, this crazy ideas and laws are pushed by the elected people on each country, most European countries have stupid ideas about copyright.  
 
I don't understand what GDPR has to do with discussion of copyright, as far as i know they are completely different things.
 
The video quoted in the OP post is titled "The EU is About to Destroy The Internet" and the video starts with "the video is not an exaggeration" . It can only be a good video without any biased, no need to see more.
 
 
 
this coming from a German is some first class irony 

This is totally something someone would say, who wants to get rid of their current stock before releasing a new product

Maybe we could livestream his prison sentence and take donations for making his cellmates do stuff to him.

29,97 fps, but Resolve should automatically detect it and ask you if you want to change the timeline to that framerate as long as it's the first footage you put on it anyway. I don't think that would cause stuttering anyway?

They understand the importance of PR. 

I did get X-T20 with 18-55 2.8-4 btw. 

Still plowing my way through the hot air, piss and wind (it's a long arduous task to decipher),  So far it looks like they have made exclusions so organizations who's main purpose is not to provide access to copyrighted content (I.E ISP's, cloud storage and data encryption services) are not liable for copyright infringement.

what makes it failed? i think they succeded in constructing a joint economy ending wars in europe
 
 

so I haven't gone to far in depth but it does seems at  odds with the claims many are making.  Particularly the bit about not holding content provider platforms liable where content is uploaded by users (not owners,) so long as appropriate measures been taken to avoid it occurring.  E.G if LTT can prove that they have been taking down cE content and any content linked was beyond their scope to prevent then they are not liable for that infringement. 

 
Sounds fairly reasonable to me.  They are just enforcing current CR laws and giving service providers a limited liability so long as they work with CR owners request (being that they are reasonable requests).
 
The first few paragraphs read a bit like the fair use policy adopted in the US.  That is that exemptions apply for research and education and cultural heritage preservation.  
 
I haven't got time to go into too much more depth right now, but I'll have a deeper look later.

Given the level of sensationalism in OP, I expected it to be The Sun or Bild... 
 
Being EU and copyright, I wouldn't be surprised if it is indeed stupid. However, I agree that "suspecting" and "knowing" are different things and require different levels of evidence.
I'd also love to know what these "ridiculously bad parts of GDPR" are...

I want to see the actual law, not a journalists interpretation of it.  We all know lobby groups like to spin things, and when lobby groups become pseudo-journalists, things only get a little bit more removed from reality.  it might be true or it might just be a other greenpeace style blow up of irrational fear.

Call me a little skeptical with these sources...
Mostly cause I can't say Ive ever heard of them, except for that Youtuber, whom I kinda recall being one of those loud right wing youtube channels which Ive come to take with a grain of salt with anything even remotely considered left wing.

Actually that will change little, let the technical people make the technical decisions and as a manager if you don't understand learn to shut up and run with the advice. So much time is wasted explaining stuff that simply cannot be understood without the years of technical background and training.
 
/rant
Also stop hiring business analysts for what is actually a system analyst role, whats the difference you ask? BA = Business and Processes, SA = Technical and Architectural. Please stop mixing them up and hiring the wrong people. If it's actually a SA role you need don't advertise it under a BA job listing.
/rant
 
Edit:
Fear of the responsibility and making bad decisions makes 30 minute decisions take 4 weeks, honestly seen this very thing many times.

Why does it matter to people?
 
It doesn't matter at all to me. 

This day has been amazing.
Google, Facebook and other companies getting some well deserved shit (hopefully Microsoft is next too). Ghostery apparently sending out their email blast with regular recipients rather than hidden ones (so everyone that got a mail, also saw the email address of 499 other users). Yeelight, some smart light bulb company/app apparently won't work anymore because they relied so heavily on harvesting user data. GreenManGaming "accidentally" put the subject of their email blast as "Order Confirmed". Here is Oath (TechCrunch and Engadget) fucking up extremely badly by sharing private data with well over 100 different third parties, all of which were enabled by default and requires the user to go into multiple submenus to find and disable. Razer apparently has to disable a bunch of their older software because it is not compliant with GDPR. Cool to know that your mouse/keyboard driver has been collecting a bunch of personal information about you.

Dark Theme. I ban people who uses something else.

What a disgrace. John certainly had his failings but to mock his death is a move that lacks any semblance of dignity.

They can still garner revenues through advertising the old fashion way though. That does not necessitate tracking of any sorts.

Ultimately it comes down to personal preference, but I just simply cannot understand the outrage over female characters. In my opinion, it doesn't matter at all that there weren't many female soldiers in WW2.
 
The benefits (greater outreach and interest to more gamers), outweighs any possible downsides, in my opinion.

Hi community,

https://kotaku.com/oh-no-there-are-women-in-battlefield-v-182627545

In our time of outrage and widespread hostility bias against 3rd wave feminism we now have this:
 
People are MAD that a woman is now on the cover of Battlefield 5, because its "not historically" accurate

The author points out the flawed logic behind that argument trough out the article. Explaining that it's a video game with so much unrealistic elements in it and that complaining about the implementation of a female characters is pretty hypocritical. 

EDIT: They say women is unacceptable because of the "historic inaccuracy", but 
1. Battlefield never pretended (in any game) to be historically accurate
2. There are many other bigger inaccuracies that didn't bother people that much

Which shows that, the outrage may actually be (intended or not) sexism hiding behind the curtain of "historical accuracy"

Anyway, here's my opinion: I didn't give a single damn when a woman was presented as the face of Battlefield 5. It would be a lie to say I didn't notice the change in the trailer, I did notice it, but I was neutral about it.
I didn't even think about it until I read the comments where I saw people emotionally invested in the fact that there was a female character. 

I don't think the outraged are inherently sexist. The problem lies in the fact that a norm was transcended and the norm was having a man on the cover and playing with male characters. People always feel uncomfortable when a norm is transgressed to the point where they are motivated to act against it (e.g: manifestations against homosexuality etc.). Even if the outraged are not sexist, they do however demonstrate quite a sexist behavior.

Now, don't come with the "but the SJW are ruining blablabla" - they're not, the gameplay remains the same. It's just a woman get over it. EA/Dice put a woman on the cover because they wanted to.
When I play video games, I make female characters all the time and my friends as well because we like it. We have no political agenda behind it, it's just fun.

Fun. That's what a game is for. Now suck it up.