Bartimaeus

The entire point of the comic, I feel, is about what's standard in a given industry for a given position (and accounting for specific context, such as being a top "prospect" and thus typically deserving better than lesser prospects), not necessarily about specific details across industries themselves. Hmm, fair? Eh...regardless of its fairness, it's ultimately rather worthless, since it gave little actual specific details on the negotiating situation itself nor very much about precedent with other players, but rather more concerned itself with covering the general details and background for someone not familiar with this sort of situation or why the situation arose to begin with. The only specific details it really covered was parroting the line the Chargers PR trotted out about how it was "the highest initial signing bonus"...and then failed to mention the other major point of contention, the offset language. It also failed to mention how badly the Chargers lowballed him at the start, and how bloody long it took for them to start giving him even halfway decent offers. Instead, to counter, it really only mentioned how Bosa's agency vaguely called out the Chargers for being deceptive and misleading towards the public, and failed to provide any sort of insight on why that might be. I don't know, that doesn't seem that compelling of an argument in regards to fairness...but uh, I guess at least the tone of the article attempted to sound fair vs all the media idiots who immediately and mindlessly piled on Bosa, I suppose.

On Bosa's holdout..:

that self-reply, hahaha

RIP Gene Wilder.

heeeeeeeeeeeeey bosa signed From what I'm reading, the chargers seemed to cave a little more than they did with their last best offer. Guess Bosa didn't feel like missing out on like an extra ten million dollars if he waited to get drafted next year. Fair enough - he put up a pretty good fight.

yeah, I misread what you said, mainly because I haven't slept in about...20 hours. shrug. personally, it took watching many episodes for the type of humor to sink in and become acclimated to, so again, I can perfectly understand why many would not like it. it's a hard inquiry to answer fully. the show, for its particular niche genre, is quite honestly rather mild by today's standards. that's actually one of the things that I like about it - unlike more modern shows of its kind, like sunny in philadelphia, it doesn't go so far over the edge of "normal" that I find it difficult to stomach like those other shows. but in regards to your original question, like I said, it's not something I can really answer.

also, I would struggle to say that seinfeld itself created a "humor gap". that's strictly on its watchers, not the show itself. anyways, I mean, a more prudent question for seinfeld would not be "what is wrong with the people on this show", but rather "what is NOT wrong with the people on this show".

because it's stupid and hilarious not that I don't understand not liking it, but ultimately, if I find something enjoyable, it matters very little what others, even entire other demographics, think of it

shady i have faith in thee you can be a better man be the man you always wanted to be or at least the man you think you should probably be, ya' psycho

The only time I can ever seriously envisioning myself being happy that another player has been injured is when they have consistently attempted to hurt others. Brandon Meriweather, with his long history of headhunting...was headhunting Eddie Lacy in a...2013 game, I think it was, and then attempted to do so on our backup RB right after after Lacy was taken out of the game for a concussion caused by Meriweather. He ended up concussing himself instead. Have a little empathy, man.

Seriously? ._.

His back has been a ticking timebomb for a few years now...although it didn't actually break in the way expected in regards to his previous injuries, so uh...maybe that's good?

@Kirottu: Another PSU option, if you haven't already purchased, would be the Corsair Vengeance series. 5 year warranty, semi-modular, incredibly dominant performance for a bronze series, and supposed to be a good price. It's a very new series (having come out this year), and is supposed to just absolutely blow away the competition at its price point. According to johnnyguru, its power efficiency numbers are more similar to silver and gold units, not bronze units, too. I would've mentioned it before now, but I was not aware of its existence since this "Vengeance" series is apparently Europe-only, and the North American variant is very poorly marketed. (For those of us in North America, this new series has unfortunately been relabeled as the new "CX-M" series - it is distinct from the previous and well-known CX/CXM series that are popular for being pretty much the lowest quality you should ever go for a decent price, and is far superior.)

Yeah, Sleep is insanely powerful even in BG1. The majority of a hundred kobolds all with bows are thus rendered completely powerless with a single Sleep spell. (e): Actually, what the heck - Sleep in BG1 is even more powerful than I thought. I use the Spell Revisions version of it, but it's honestly more powerful in vanilla BG1 than in Spell Revisions - a -3 penalty to the save, and 5 rounds per level!? That's ridiculous. Its only weakness is that it becomes mostly useless during the latter half of BG1 and totally useless in BG2 due to it not affecting creatures level 5 or higher. In Spell Revisions, it's limited to 5 rounds flat, does not penalize the save...but works on creatures of higher level. In theory, this makes it sorta usable for higher levels, but not really in practice. The vanilla version, though, is insanely powerful and pretty much uncounterable for the first half of BG1.

what the hell was that some chiefs defensive player just like near freaking totally deliberately broke connor shaw (bears' backup QB) leg in half that was brutal

What a shame.

In contrast, I used to be just merely O.K. with Miriam in Raiders...but the more times I'd seen the movie, the more I loathed her. Willie from Temple of Doom, on the other hand, was incredibly annoying the first few times I watched the movie...but after more rewatches over the years, I actually grew to like her the best out of the lot, and I actually like Temple of Doom the best out of the three movies.

I really like some elements of that movie (...I have a little bit of a soft spot for classic Bruce Willis action flicks), but I also really dislike others. It's really hard for me to sit through the entire thing as a result. 12 Monkeys is more my kind of jam, to be honest.

But...I mean, I don't really get how that's clearly "mixed signals". She hung out for a while - so what? Do friends not ever see each other off when they leave? Do friends not ever hang around to talk for a bit? To me, this all seems like pretty normal, spur-of-the-moment stuff that people, friends, whatever can do depending upon the situation and what's going on. I get your frustration, and I'm not trying to say it's like invalid or anything, but, I mean, I gotta chalk this one up to two people simply not being on the same page in regards to their relationship with one another. Gotta move on if it doesn't suit you, all there is to it,

It can be a little difficult to be totally honest with your intentions in regards to somebody when you know it might very well hurt and/or offend them...particularly when you're really trying not to do that, isn't it? Probably why people, including this person, generally prefer to send "mixed signals" instead of just always saying the truth outright.

By the same token, if you don't want to be friends with someone, you can just tell them or even merely just begin to ignore them, too.

The Browns just have so very little quality depth, and some of their starters are pretty questionable, too. I can see them winning maybe a few games in the beginning of their schedule, but it's hard to see them finishing the season well (relatively speaking) after injuries have piled up on their better players.

Hm, if they bring that to EU4, I might actually play it again...

Well, we're going off on a tangent here, but from my limited non-software engineer perspective (I only took some CS classes in uni), I'm not sure it's so simple. If the data is encrypted or otherwise protected in memory (i.e. the game doesn't simply read a byte that tells it how many of X you currently have), Cheat Engine would not be able to do anything. Code/memory injection-type attacks are a thing, and countermeasures exist. You'd have to reverse-engineer the protection first and then write a custom application to inject the desired values. Essentially, a second crack. Did they even bother cracking the Keep thing for DAI? And that wasn't even "encrypted" AFAIK. Realistically, I don't know how much effort it would take to hide/encrypt/protect the game from such fiddling, especially if the decision to implement the microtransactions was more a management meeting thing after the basic design had been laid out. edit: yes, to lock you out, the game would indeed have to dial home. The problem is, encryption in live memory becomes increasingly complicated (...and not really worth the effort) when you have tools like Cheat Engine provides at your disposal. So the real value you're looking for is encrypted, O.K., fine. Are modifications to that value encrypted as well? Is the game constantly switching around where it's reading the value from in your physical memory? For the game to realistically pose any true difficulty for Cheat Engine to be able to find a given value, it really has to do all three of these things: be unpredictably encrypted in the first place, unpredictably encrypt any changes to the value in question (for example, if the original encrypted value is....5000, but is encrypted to be some random value, the encryption then must encrypt, for example, a +100 change to not be detectable as a +100 change), and then furthermore, the game must have the value changing where it's located constantly. Why is the last one important? Because even if you do the first two, it is still remarkably easy for the player to deliberately and predictably cause a change in the value they're looking to edit (for example, for the most basic thing typically being money, selling or buying something repeatedly), which an experienced Cheat Engine user will be able to notice rather quickly if they know what they're doing...and in the Cheat Engine community, it only takes one person knowing what they're doing (and there are a relatively decent amount of these people around) and pinning down a path to the true value to create a table that everyone else, experienced user or random shmuck, can use with relative ease. And even then, if all of that is done, I'm sure there are probably other ways I'm not aware of/experienced in to figure out how to bypass the encryption. I am not in any way - not even close - a Cheat Engine expert and I've dealt with the first two things I've described with varying difficulty (it depends on a case by case scenario - sometimes it's pretty easy, sometimes very difficult) and have yet to see a real implementation of the third. A true calling home feature, on the other hand, is probably less performance-decreasing than that sort of live encryption would be (as so much would have to be encrypted and swapped to prevent easy vectors of attack from an experienced Cheat Engine user) and much easier to program...but on the other hand, it requires the player to always be online, because if it allows for an offline mode, then the player can always just use Cheat Engine in the offline mode before coming back online, because the call home will then have no real choice but to accept that what the client is saying is true.