sanfilippo12

People who don't want to incur credit card charges. 

Haha, I use my debit card (either physical or through Google Pay) for pretty much everything . I was with my parents the other day and I swiped my debit card for like a $0.70 odd cent coffee at a gas station. My mom was like "Really?".
 
Nah. There are tons of people who use cash for perfectly legitimate reasons. Many use cash over debit or credit whenever possible. There are various reasons for it. Some people just prefer cash because they find it easier to keep track of your money. If it is just sitting in a bank, it requires a bit more discipline to keep track of what you are charging.
 
I think it is partly a generational thing. Most people my age (based on observation, not any actual figures), usually just swipe cards or use GP/AP. But I see older people use cash quite often. I think they just grew up in an era where cash was king and still have that mindset.
 

In the most recent WAN show, Linus spent some time admonishing Nvidia for their many (possible) versions of the upcoming RTX 2060. 3GB, 4GB, 6GB?! GDDR5/6!? How is a consumer to understand!?
 
While I agree with Linus wholeheartedly that this is a marketing ploy and will make consumer decisions more difficult; how is that anything new? 
 
If I want to buy a Ford, I know what Ford is. If I want to buy a Ford Mustang, I know what a Ford Mustang is. Uh oh. Now what. I can get the Ford Mustang with a turbo-4? A 6 cylinder Mustang? How about this 8 cylinder? Sure it costs more but surely 8 is better than 6 or 4? What is a limited slip differential? What do you mean performance tires?
 
To wit; if one is a technological neophyte, does a Ryzen 3800X seem like something to wait for when an i7-9900K already exists? Heck, the only other option is a 2700X. That sounds way behind! What do all of these numbers really mean?
 
My point is; if you're going to focus on marketing inconsistencies, be consistent even outside of the tech industry (which itself is far from consistent). If you feel the graphics card market has become so obtuse even to you so as to be parsable, offer a market that is better served. CPU's make sense? Motherboards? Even RAM or SSDs?

Sure farming is not natural but at least the meat is 100% real imo. 

Dang I hate California.  Still do.

Dang I hate California.  Still do.

Dang I hate California.  Still do.

I don't know the guy or watch any of his videos but banning him is a form of censorship whether he is right or wrong. 
 
I don't get people, first they all bitch when their freedom of speech is taken, sites block, opinions banned, but then when one guy spews his opinion suddenly its fine??
 
Seriously people, make up your fucking minds. All or none.

Freedom of speech / expression is more than a law, it's also a philosophy...

What ever you think about Alex Jones and Infowars, this blatent censorship and will lead down a dark path where anyone can be banned/silenced for having an option that is not in line with the status quo or the Media's current agenda

Have you seen the box?

Me. Slightly higher base clock, OC if needed, higher resale cost. Works out about even

What could be written is an interface that lists all your existing games, whereby you launch the one you wish to play, and the program opens the correct client, and then when you are done playing said game, closes said client.
 
We could call it something like GMI "Game Management Interface"

Why is one part of the document English and the other part Communist?

Anyone old enough to remember GameShark?
 
I've done cheats on single player games, but never multiplayer. I used to have getting freaking romped online in Diablo 2. I don't months done running my armor and weapons only to have his for let me hit him for a minute going no damage, then he one hit killed me. Cheating in multiplayer is stupid. I hate it. It doesn't make you better. Cheats aren't greater than skill.
 
Glad the accounts got banned, unfortunately, most are probably just burner accounts.

I remember buying cheat code books at the book fair in elementary school, and having some special disc to put into the PS2 before starting the actual game. Star Wars battlefront 2 sure was fun with unlimited ammo. But to pull this kind of stuff in a multiplayer game where everyone is theoretically supposed to be exercising their skill and having fun is just wrong.

I don't know about that. There are a lot of people who buy Apple products because they are part of the ecosystem or don't know any better or simply choose them over alternatives - but the overlap between people who rush out and drop $3000 on a laptop within days of launch and people who fit in the previous category is pretty damn slim.
 
Most of the early reports of this problem came from people who bought these devices specifically to review what should be one of the fastest portable machines in the world - and who traditionally give glowing reviews of them. That's when you know Apple has a real problem on their hands here.
 
The people with their "iBlinders" on are never going to drop 3 grand on a new mac, and the professionals who need the potential performance of the i9 in this form factor are all going to be INCREDIBLY unhappy about this.
 
Apple has been lazily sticking "new" hardware in the same shell now for 3 years, without considering the power requirements of having more cores and a higher performance part. Everyone expected this the moment they announced the specs, but even the diehard apple fans haven't been able to justify it.
 
Edit: I forgot to add, I don't think this community should stoop to lobbing vitriol at people like @DrMacintosh (not so much in this thread, but I've seen it frequently over the past few days). He works in the industry of repairing apple devices, and he knows the score. He's not some blind idiot who buys whatever crap Apple drops only because he likes the company.

I agree that they are a private entity, but they claim to be a platform, not a publisher. This is where the problem lies. Breitbart, The New York Times, DailyWire, Wall Street Journal, etc. are publishers. They are responsible for everything in their publication/on their website, and they can remove an article before publishing, or take one down, if they desire. They are supposed to vet everything. If a picture is used in their publication without the creator/photographer’s permission in an article, the publisher gets sued, not the author. (That’s why publishers always give credit or use their own photographers). 
 
Facebook claims to be a platform, in the case of being a platform, they should allow all legal things to be posted. Once they start vetting and editing and such, they become a publisher.
 
Here’s a hypothetical situation that could occur in a “Facebook as a Publisher” World:
Now Joe Schmoe sets a pretty sunset as his profile picture, but Joe Schmoe didn’t take the photo, Jane Lane did. Jane Lane now knows that Facebook is now supposed to vet content, so it’s Facebook’s fault someone is using her photograph (which she had behind a paywall before it somehow got distributed) without permission. Jane Lane sues Facebook for allowing someone to use her photo on their vetted website without her permission. Will she win? Probably not, but it’s a dumb lawsuit Facebook has to deal with (and probably the first of many). 
This is one of many reasons Facebook should stick to being a platform, and not be a publisher. 

Correct. They should take no responsibility for what is posted on their platform. 
For example, AT&T takes no responsibility for what is said over their platform. They don’t vet, edit, or censor phone calls. 
If Facebook is going to claim to be a platform, they need to act like it and do nothing about the user-posted content. 
Once they vet, edit, and censor, they become a publisher and they become responsible for everything posted. 

I agree that they are a private entity, but they claim to be a platform, not a publisher. This is where the problem lies. Breitbart, The New York Times, DailyWire, Wall Street Journal, etc. are publishers. They are responsible for everything in their publication/on their website, and they can remove an article before publishing, or take one down, if they desire. They are supposed to vet everything. If a picture is used in their publication without the creator/photographer’s permission in an article, the publisher gets sued, not the author. (That’s why publishers always give credit or use their own photographers). 
 
Facebook claims to be a platform, in the case of being a platform, they should allow all legal things to be posted. Once they start vetting and editing and such, they become a publisher.
 
Here’s a hypothetical situation that could occur in a “Facebook as a Publisher” World:
Now Joe Schmoe sets a pretty sunset as his profile picture, but Joe Schmoe didn’t take the photo, Jane Lane did. Jane Lane now knows that Facebook is now supposed to vet content, so it’s Facebook’s fault someone is using her photograph (which she had behind a paywall before it somehow got distributed) without permission. Jane Lane sues Facebook for allowing someone to use her photo on their vetted website without her permission. Will she win? Probably not, but it’s a dumb lawsuit Facebook has to deal with (and probably the first of many). 
This is one of many reasons Facebook should stick to being a platform, and not be a publisher. 

Agree, this is like banning the tabloid magazines at the grocery.
 
Infowars has plenty of crazy nonsense, but they also have plenty non conspiracy theory content involving politics, etc. Hell, look at Alex Jones documentary inside Bohemian Grove, that documentary alone proves that Jones is not 100% full of shit, though I'd believe he's close to 70%. 
 
Furthermore conspiracy theories and fake news are mutually exclusive by definition. If a conspiracy theory were proven incorrect, in which fake news must be, then it is no longer a conspiracy theory.
 
Exactly, any blocking of media sources for news(bogus or not) is basically public thought control no matter how trivial the outlet.

All I know is a person that is 18 in martian years is probably about 33 ish in earth years, so they really probably aren't children by earth standards, so this is certainly fake news. 

62% less gravity means 62% more work right?

they shouldn't ban anything. Fuck em. If people wanna believe people are space enslaving children on mars, fuck em. Low gravity is easier labor anyway 

Agreed, it's up to the individual not a corporation with it's own sets of interests and agendas to determine which information is relevant and factual. If you believe everything you see on the internet, that's your own fault. It's basic common sense to take everything you see on the web with a grain of salt.