Obviously, I wasn’t about to spend $3000 and hours of my time to find out whether this particular report was an exception

I’d wager my kidneys to a pack of gum that you didn’t even know there was a full, paywalled report behind this before you commented (the PC Gamer article you quoted never cites $3000). If you did, this line of reasoning would be an interesting way to save face had, again, a bulleted description and table of contents not been freely available, making laughably obvious what minimal critical thought went into your mischaracterization of the report.

And frankly, if you did know, that’s even wilder, because you fully assumed you knew better; you didn’t even try to qualify it. You just outright said they failed to account for it without knowing what was in the report. Which is somehow even worse.

I can’t say I’m impressed with their research, which neglects to account for graphics card prices tripling around the start of this decade and never returning to normal I read a magazine article about a small press release for and made a completely unfounded assumption about

These quarterly press releases from Jon Peddie Research mainly just go over more recent developments in high-level detail. The actual report, which yes is $3000 because it’s meant for enterprise customers, covers all of this, which you can verify by reading its description and ToC.

Such unfounded confidence that a professional report studying the cost of GPUs fails to account for some basic shit someone would tell you on Reddit is just arrogance; there’s no other word for it.

I will inform you that this excerpt is correct English. There needn’t be an article like “a” or “the” before “possibility”. It reads awkwardly in everyday language, but that really is just innocent “legalese” phrasing.

No, beyond the legalese. For example, the comma placement in:

which, unknown to them threatens,

The comma should go after “them”, because “unknown to them” constitutes the entire aside.

If you delete the aside in this, it reads “which national security”, whereas it should read “which threatens national security”.

This is just the first one I found; I didn’t go hunting for them. It’s one of those grammatical mistakes that actively ruins the cadence of the sentence as you read it in your head.

deleted by creator

I’ve never seen Magic Earth, but as an OSM contributor, I don’t understand why I’d use a subscription service when all the underlying data is free (as in beer and freedom) and contributed by volunteers (and likely not the app devs). One-time app purchases like OsmAnd I understand because you’re doing stuff with the data like routing, overlays, etc., and that requires development work. But a subscription seems absurd.

The developers’ page on GOG.

A shame that GamingOnLinux only links to Steam when some of their games are available DRM-free on GOG – pretty goddamn relevant when the games are set to be delisted in like 10 days.

That’d be really weird given how detailed the crab is, because the astacids – lobsters and crayfish – are globally distributed like crabs. The E.T. thing doesn’t even have the right number of limbs, which is why I had to either invoke infraorder Anomura or assume a bilateral congenital limb defect.

It’s actually like the product of trisexual reproduction between E.T., a lobster, and an arachnid.

Not fair. I also see a non-mussel bivalve, a crab, a gastropod, uhhhh… what looks like the offspring between E.T. and an anomuran decapod, I can’t even fathom a guess at those cockroach mice things…?

Edit: On reinspection, the red demon has the most “it’s a living”-ass face possible.

I appreciate the insight; I don’t buy these products, so hearing from someone who does is helpful. I guess at the end of the day there still have to be forces pushing these companies not to add/enlarge pockets, because any economic model would say that corporations – who’d burn your house down if it saved them a nickel – know that this debate has been going on, have probably run countless trials, focus groups, etc., and would pounce on this the second they saw profit.

• Purses do alleviate this burden on corporations a lot. If purses disappeared overnight, the children working in Southeast Asian jean sweatshops would be in for a bad, bad morning. (I’d also say I don’t think this is a conspiracy to sell purses, as the market’s barrier for entry is low enough and purses already commonplace enough that they’d only be hurting themselves.)
• At minumum there’s always some tradeoff when you have pockets. I’d bet that, beyond the baseline material cost of making pockets, it costs more and more in labor to hide the pockets as the pants become more form-fitting and the pockets become larger.
• So even if you could make something that’s form-fitting with normal pockets (assuming no noticeable trade-off in form), it’d probably cost more at a price women aren’t willing to pay in an age of expansive wardrobes and fast fashion.

That’s just a guess going off what you’ve said, which I believe – mostly, anyway, since it feels like larger pockets would always diminish form-fitting in at least some small way.

Yeah, right? I thought this was settled at least five years ago. Preface: I get we’re not in a frictionless vacuum free market with perfectly rational agents acting on perfect information. Auto makers in the US, for example, induce demand for massive fuck-off pickup trucks – which exploit regulatory loopholes and are worse than standard cars for most people – by driving down the supply of alternatives and massively marketing trucks to people who categorically don’t need them.

However, pants are an obvious case where you can’t have both: you can’t have normal-sized pockets (let alone the Felix the Cat-ass ones men can have with cargo pants) and elegant, form-fitting clothing. Demand always exists for big pockets because big pockets are objectively beneficial, but at a population level in a zero-sum game, women prefer form (fitting) over function (bigger pockets). This does leave a minority who actually would prefer and buy the larger pockets, but because this is a minority, it’s also the minority of supply, and these women are faced with fewer options. Because the supply of pants is highly elastic, the amount of pants with good pockets is probably close to its actual demand – even accounting for imperfect information where some women may truly want but just not know how to buy them. It’s also true that demand for bigger pants would go up if purses weren’t so normalized among women, but they are, and there’s not a strong force acting to reverse that.

On a personal note: I don’t get what the big deal is (I mean I do, but not from what I’d see myself wearing); the women I’ve known who wear looser pants with baggier pockets to me have usually looked better.

When I’m playing Sonic CD and I haven’t destroyed the robot generator yet.

One of the best side effects of having gone vegan is that the cost of food has gone through the floor. Plant-based staples are dirt cheap and extremely shelf-stable, and because most times it’s easier and more interesting to cook for myself, I learned a lot of insanely cheap, yummy, and healthy foods to cook. I just bought 8 lb of Desi chickpeas and 20 lbs of basmati rice – enough to feed the fucking Artesh for a year – for about $30 (and I wasn’t trying to penny-pinch). The spices, herbs, sauces, oil, nuts, etc. that go into making that, meanwhile, barely even factor in cost-wise.

Even with a non-plant-based diet, you’ll find cooking staples like chicken at home saves you a fuckload of money.

Wrong. It was invented by Tony Sacrimoni. It’s gonna be a real hit, I tell ya. Foo-gedda-boo-teet.

God bless you, Chargeman Ken.

You’re not contradicting anything they said, and you’re not contradicting that Steam is a monopoly.

That tends to happen when you have a monopoly on an industry where you get 30% of the revenue from other people’s hard work.

Any chance of something like OpenWrt?

Say what you will, but those 84 people stayed because there’s no better place for microwaved insults to Southern cuisine this side of the Walmart frozen dinners aisle.

OP, you say “free, open source, and fully attributed”, but it’s really not fully attributed. I know Google will live, but you need to be more attentive to licensure and credit. Here are some major problems (in no particular order):

• The weather icon pack is licensed under CC BY 4.0, yet you never mention this license. It’s not sharealike (“SA”), so you can relicense, but it would be nice for users to know that you are, in fact, allowed to do that.
• You never link to the weather icons page so users can easily find the original icons.
• You say “inspired by Google’s Weather Icons v4” but then never say what you changed or how. Did you modify them? Build these from scratch using Google’s as a reference? You don’t have to say for the license; this would just be nice. If it can’t be summed up in a sentence or two, then fair enough.
• In “Credits & Acknowledgments”, you never mention the Google Weather icons – which are the entire reason this repo exists. Given the only requirement of CC BY is proper attribution, something needs to go here.
• You don’t even link back to the third-party repo where you got them from.
• Under “License & Legal Notice” and in your LICENSE file, you call the copyright status of the icons “uncertain”. This confuses the hell out of me, because on the icons pack page for Google, it clearly reads at the bottom: Except as otherwise noted, the content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License, and code samples are licensed under the Apache 2.0 License.
  • This to me indicates you did minimal research and didn’t actually care about the license but called it “open-source” anyway and happened to get lucky. It seems like instead of finding the official source, you got them from this repo which is similarly sloppy.
  • One of the lines reads “No official Google documentation has been located that confirms these specific icons are released under an open source license”. OP, for the love of actual god, this would’ve taken less time to find than it took you to type that sentence; below is the second result on DuckDuckGo for “google weather icons pack” after your own repository:

Now you have all your research done for you, and Cunningham’s law is proven right again.