Bartimaeus

TVs have really bad input delay: you're at a pretty distinct disadvantage if you try to play fast-paced multiplayer games with them vs. other people who are using normal monitors. So monitors aren't going to go away any time soon in gaming just for that unless TV manufacturer's priorities change (they most likely won't, given that TVs are, first and foremost, made with the best picture quality for watching TV/movies in mind). Additionally, I personally find extra large monitors and TVs to be a bit of an eye-sore, and the larger they are, the farther back you have to sit, and after a certain size, the traditional desk setup becomes incompatible with them (unless you have a really large desk, I guess). So that's gonna be a no from me. Maybe I'll change my tune in a few decades when my eyes don't work so well, though...but also maybe the issue will already be solved by then anyways.

Falcons win, and the Packers' season is officially over! I'm a little relieved, because I really did not want to see Rodgers get hit any more next week one a one out of a million scenario. Plus, maybe our horrible DC will finally get fired after finally no longer being carried by Rodgers.

Is it against the rules to make a few alt-accounts to rig this? I want to make sure Quest 64 sits at the #1 game of all time like it deserves.

Why not get rid of the safety too? These are bookend rules about what happens when a player loses control of the ball and it goes out of the endzone. Yes, they penalize offensive players which is too be expected because they had possession and lost it in the first place. Because it's a rule that creates really weird and almost always undeserved turnovers. I've never seen a situation where this rule was used where I thought, "Oh, that makes sense, that's great!". Just the opposite - even when the Packers won a game earlier off of it against the Bears, it was stupid. When the Seahawks won against the Lions last year because of it, it was stupid. Go ahead and fumble at the 1 yard line out of bounds all you want, but don't you dare fumble any closer to the goal line than that... @Shady: Why not just become an owner of the Packers instead? Fantasy football related: I am in my league's championship game after an improbable run: won 5 of my last 6 games of the regular season, which combined with a win earlier in the season, gave me an amazing 6-7 record on the season...which let me claim the 6th and final seed on tiebreakers. My team is, quite frankly, terrible, but somehow I'm in the championship game. It's all up to me from stopping the same guy from winning my league 3 times in a row. I think my luck is gonna run out, but hey, you can only make do with what you're given.

Uh, why? Fumble out of the sides of the endzone, it just goes back to where it was when it was last possessed, same as if it were fumbled out of bounds in the middle of the field.

My gosh, what's wrong with my brain. HUNGARIAN, not Polish. Good lord. Actually making me cringe a little that I got it wrong again.

Some really dissatisfying ends today. Packers get a lucky onside kick with 2 minutes to go to tie the game to go into overtime...and a receiver, who came in to replace the guy the Panthers headhunted earlier in the game, immediately fumbles the ball, game over. Steelers have a shot at beating the Patriots for the #1 seed...or worse case, tie the game if they can't get the TD...and Big Ben has a giant brain fart and decides to throw a really stupid pick instead when he could've just thrown it away for another shot. And now this...Carr makes a hilariously stupid decision to stretch out for the pylon when he really wasn't even close, drops the ball in the end zone, and one of the worst rules in the NFL is activated: touchback. If you fumble out of bounds at any other point in the field, you get the ball back, but not in the end zone for some reason. Grr. All I saw today were good games with horrible endings.

Meh. If you didn't much care for the gameplay mechanics of FO3 (and I personally thought they were not that good as well as outrageously clunky), there ain't much of a point.

Oops. Yeah, Polish, not Hungarian. Good call, .

Well, Rodgers threw 3 INTs (including two back-to-back) putting the game out of reach - first time he's thrown that many since 2009. That'll finally end the Packers' season when combined with the 32nd-ranked red zone defense. Kept underthrowing all day - seems like he wasn't ready to return after all. (edit): lol, we got a TD and then incredibly got a onside kick recovery, and then the receiver immediately fumbled to end the game.

I'm looking through my history, but did not find anything. Found mentions of the FCC wanting to make it so states couldn't come up with their own net neutrality laws, but not much about municipal internet. Either something that was just thrown out there as an idea, fake news, or I'm misremembering, I guess. There goes my career in journalism... Well, at least in quarter-decent publications, anyways.

Well, I started rooting for the Chargers because I thought the Chiefs were pretty much donezo and wouldn't do anything in the playoffs, and of course, the Chargers immediately fall off a cliff in their most important game of the season. I guess I just shouldn't root for AFCW teams anymore, since it seems like they all immediately die when I do (going back to last year with the Raiders...).

Well, I don't like Metroidvania games with only rare exception is my excuse.

checkmate, monopolists

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/95151-politics-thread-silicon-valley-edition/ ?

In addition to repealing net neutrality today, the FCC has also started the process on repealing the 39% TV market cap. Essentially, there is currently a rule that prevents one person or company from controlling or buying up too much of the market, which is currently set to 39%.

Zoraptor kind of already pointed out why you can't: too much infrastructure is owned by our ISPs, which makes it virtually impossible for new companies to enter already controlled markets as the cost to enter the market is so incredibly high, unlike in New Zealand. Also as Zoraptor more or less said previously, a little regulation and a lot of competition is usually pretty good, no competition and a lot of regulation is worse, but no regulation and no competition is horrible. Naturally, the FCC also wants to make municipal internet illegal, which is probably the only thing that has a chance at creating any competition for these companies on a national scale.

Huh, I think I posted the link to that exact site like a week ago. Yep.

I tend to like Scottish accents. I'm neutral towards most English (or British, whatever) accents, though I hate "commercial" English accents - anytime the voice-over in an American commercial has a British accent, that's the one I'm talking about. For some reason, companies think having the most outrageously pompous-sounding Brits talk down to us is a good idea.

Ah. Well, I honestly think you are incapable of understanding much and conversate from disingenuous positions. I guess Ill have to take a pass.

That's crazy high, even considering the circumstances. Hope you and your GP can figure something out.

In this political climate, I don't think conservative America would even entertain the idea of making all candidates submit to physical and mental tests. Maybe physical, but definitely not mental...and I kind of have my own misgivings about the latter, too. I think most people have mental issues of some kind - some more serious that can interfere with doing your job and your life in general, and some much less so. If the results of these tests were revealed to the public, both sides would just weaponize them against each other, and eventually the political parties would just try to find candidates who'll get a totally clean bill of health - or candidates who can at least fake their way through. So much of mental health diagnostics require the subject to answer honestly with the intent of getting the correct diagnosis: I don't want to encourage even more liars and sociopaths to pursue our highest offices than we already do. And if you don't reveal the results publicly, what's the purpose of screening? Would you give psychologists the power to unilaterally eliminate candidates for reasons they won't divulge? No, I just don't think most people would go for that - I think even many liberals and progressives would probably take issue to that.

I don't think that's entirely true - keyword being "entirely". The voting splits suggested that white turnout was horrible - but what whites did vote voted for him (instead of the Dem) at about the same percentage as normal. That happened almost certainly because of the controversy (especially when the large write-in count was almost certainly because of what would've been Republican voters deciding he was not worth their vote). On the other hand, yes, black voters had great turnout (saying that America was better when slavery was still around probably wasn't the wisest choice of words, as indirectly as he said it), and a little over 95% of all black voters went for Jones. Plainly saying America would be better without the 13th amendment seems pretty direct to me. Where did he "plainly say" that? As far as I know, he said all of the amendments after the 10th. There are sixteen other amendments after the 10th besides the 13th, so I think that's indirect, even though it (and other similar amendments like the 15th and 19th) are probably what he was getting at. The guy's undoubtedly a monster for this reason and many others...which is why I don't feel it's necessary to stretch the truth here.

I don't think that's entirely true - keyword being "entirely". The voting splits suggested that white turnout was horrible - but what whites did vote voted for him (instead of the Dem) at about the same percentage as normal. That happened almost certainly because of the controversy (especially when the large write-in count was almost certainly because of what would've been Republican voters deciding he was not worth their vote). On the other hand, yes, black voters had great turnout (saying that America was better when slavery was still around probably wasn't the wisest choice of words, as indirectly as he said it), and a little over 95% of all black voters went for Jones.

Seems like NYT has all but called it for Jones now at >95% chance of winning. Almost all of the heavily conservative-leaning precincts have been counted, and he's behind by a full point with more liberal-leaning areas to go. I hope it goes up to where they're projecting, around 3 points. (e): The AP has officially called it for Doug Jones. Congratulations, Democrats. (e): Seems like he won't get as high as the previous 3, looks like it'll be more like 1-1.5.