Zoraptor

Spectre/ Meltdown patches affect some things more than that, but you would not generally be doing them on a laptop. For gaming and general usage they're largely irrelevant as the CPU isn't the limiting factor anyway in most cases. All the 6000-9000 series Intels are the same architecture with almost no improvement core/ core apart from clock speed.

I'd say "garbage" and "mediocre" is worlds apart. As for DICE, as far as I know, they treated their employees quite well and supported their games for a fairly long time, which would elevate them above "garbage" in itself. To be fair realistic depiction of WW1 would be boring gameplay, sitting for months in own feces in trenches shooting into darknes slowly getting consumed by some disease from decaying corpses around... Then you get to walk- not run- towards some dudes with machine guns across 100m of barbed wire, craters, debris and bodies to an enemy trench knowing that if you manage to take that trench there are a dozen more behind it. Or if you're Italian you get to attack the Isonzo River 12 times consecutively, because attacking at exactly the same place as previous is the last thing Fritz will expect. Also make sure you have your gas mask on you at all times as well, lest you end your days drowning in your own fluids. Not getting a 'realistic' WW1 fps is actually a pretty good thing. Eastern front was a bit more interesting, also Tanzania and Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck's campaign- but no americans so not a viable game setting.

Personally I slide theatrically into my bright orange Nissan Cube- the 'Admiral Yamamoto', proudly emblazoned with the rising sun and rays- via the wound down front window as all manly men do.

EEs do of course have mobile versions? They even, technically, have in app purchases to go with the mobile versions. (Bloody smileys, never sure if someone is being serious when they use them; and where has the classic :rage: smiley gone?)

I think you need to read the treaty itself, or at least a decent executive summary as you've made a fairly critical error: INF despite its abbreviation bans both nuclear and non nuclear land based missiles and launchers in those range categories- which it pretty much has to, or you could just swap warheads on dual use systems or sea based variants. Doesn't actually matter if nuclear tomahawks are all retired because land launchers that can fire conventional ones are banned as well. There isn't any dissent that I've seen that Aegis Ashore MK41 VLS is capable of firing cruise missiles, hence it is 100% banned for land deployment under INF even if it's not intended- pinky swear- to be used to fire them. I actually think the INF is one of the more useless treaties and a certain number of violations are inevitable (a lot of land based missile testing is technically illegal, even when not intended to be fired from land or being used as test object), but the only party that is definitely violating it at the moment is the US.

Maginot Line was a symptom of the problem not the problem itself though. It did its own job well enough, it was just pointless when the Germans attacked around it and your strategic and tactical response was to contemplate your navel for four days then blindly panic. Moribund and ossified command with associated stupid deployment of conventional forces and inability to react was the french problem. Patton also had the fairly unique position of being on the perpetual strategic offense due to disparity of resources and having constant air superiority. It's not wholly wrong even today, but it is wrong enough. The US has used fixed fortifications under different names extensively since WW2 (and before) as everyone does. Some of the forts the US has in Afghanistan have been around considerably longer than the Maginot Line was prior to WW2 at this point. And their forts in Vietnam were one of the few bits of strategy that worked well, since they did regularly draw NVA/ Vier Minh formations out to attack them. Then again I'm making more out of it than intended because I do think Patton is a blowhard, whatever quote is used and from whomever the Trump Wall is a pretty unworkable idea overall.

Volo was on to something... Meh, if you sanction someone they're likely to think you're a fascist (or commie) as point of principle. Russia 1 is for internal consumption, and that sort of propaganda is always designed to enhance your audience's built in prejudices and ignorance reinforced by previous propaganda. Nazi is used for effect because Russians hate nazis, ergo nazi Kanada == bad. It's also, to a certain extent, designed specifically to reduce trust in media so other country's propaganda channels (VoA, RFE/RL, BBC Russia etc) don't work. Not like it doesn't happen in the west either, it's just typically more subtle or appears so since it's tailored to western sensibilities. Most westerners will think that Russia is abrogating the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF)- when the US has been demonstrably violating it with a deployed system, Aegis Ashore, for 2 years and planned to well before that- because the media are idiots who parrot NATO statements uncritically because anything else is hard work, goes against editorial lines and may get you labelled as a bot or troll; and most people accept it because it fits their prejudices and belief that Russia cannot be trusted and comes from an 'authoritative' source. And, for the few that know and suggest the US has violated it you can deploy the three backstops in sequence: Aegis Ashore doesn't count as it's launcher only no cruise missiles (it counts, launchers are explicitly banned as well as the missiles but you can 95% rely on journos not to check; you also have plenty of analysts outright saying that once the INF is gone CMs will be deployed because they'd be so effective), we're trustworthy when we say we won't deploy cruise missiles and Russia should just Take Our Word For It while they're not trustworthy and we cannot take their word for it; and China isn't bound by it anyway. As if the latter is relevant, China literally cannot hit the mainland US with intermediate range missiles, they can't even hit Hawai'i. You can put money on journos not checking basic geography as well though. If anything the Russian population's position overall is better than the western one, since they tend to think everyone is feeding them tripe including their own media; many westerners are positively proud of believing whatever they're told. As if I needed more reason to think Patton was a blowhard.

I remember buying that ages ago, mostly because screenshots and descriptions reminded me a tad of Might and Magic's. I recall emerging from some tutorial area, walking forward into some forest for a bit and being trounced by some mobster mobs. Then for some reason I never went back to it. I meant to, but...hm. Another disc I should pull out. Normally I'd avoid even minor spoilers if I could, but... That would be the infamous Road to Arnika, and its even more infamous level scaled mobs. A lot of people quit there as completing the first area thoroughly hits the PC level trigger for higher level random mobs on the Road; and those mobs are overleveled; and there are lots of them. Any introduction to Wiz 8 should include a suggestion to avoid combat on the Arnika Road unless you're sure you can win (hide behind buildings and sneak down one side or the other) because otherwise it will be incredibly frustrating only a few hours in.

It isn't specific to video game stock, it applies to stock (and other investments) in general. Economically speaking... Essentially, if the countries central bank is quantitatively easing- 'printing money', in the old parlance- there's no point keeping that money in the bank as deposit interest rates are typically below inflation so you have negative return. So alternatives like the sharemarket or cryptocurrency or housing get artificially inflated because investors have more and more money to get rid of from the 'printing' and fewer places to put it. That's why objectively relatively poorly performing stocks like most game companies still went up in value massively over the past few years, and well performed ones inflated even more, why we had cryptocurrency bubbles and housing bubbles- things are crashing now because the spigot has been turned off and investments have to be justified in the real world again and a lot cannot be*. This also tended to hide underlying problems companies like Activision have: so long as shares appreciated sufficiently Bobby was doing a good job because shares were going up- now that reality has reasserted itself and shares are at a more realistic level and have dropped his performance is a lot less compelling. Bobby deserved his salary because by the metrics his performance was judged by he was performing well, and better than comparative rivals. I would not dispute that those metrics are... deeply flawed and his performance from a longer term view is leading towards a near inevitable implosion, but those metrics are unfortunately typical. It should also be noted that the other game companies have also roughly halved in value as has much of the market, so by share price metric everyone is rubbish now. *biggest example: bitcoin, $3800 at peak, today it's... $126. Literally 97% of peak value lost in barely a year.

Funny thing is that Kotick was not overpaid, at least not comparatively. Activision was the best performing game stock for a long time, and that's what Bobby got paid for. At this point he's pretty much run the company into the ground by focusing on the short term and relying on big franchises with little new stuff coming through, but that same approach of having no chaff is what brought in the money and inflated the stock prices (more than others, to be clear) in the first place. Stock markets themselves are the fundamental problem as they focus far too much on short term; and everything inflated beyond their actual worth due to low interest rates/ quantitative easing. Even relatively poorly performing companies like EA saw huge share price appreciation over the last few years.

Both were a matter of core beliefs though, and picking a bad option over what they considered a worse one. Yeah, this mess is almost completely not May's fault. Worst mistake she made apart from going for the leadership in the first place perhaps was the fairly small one- so far as Brexit was concerned- of calling a snap election, everything else was her trying to make an omelette with the pack of utterly smashed eggs she inherited and people complaining about the inevitable eggshell in it or wanting fried or poached eggs even if the only thing possible was an omelette. David Cameron is mostly to blame, along with the EU not taking the concerns of a lot of Britons seriously and offering the minimum they thought they could get away with for a narrow remain vote. History should view Cameron as one of the worst PMs of all time, but it will probably be May who gets that label. It doesn't look like much of a threat from the outside especially since Ireland/ NI has been under the same EU customs control for ~20 years now; but for a unionist being softly annexed to Ireland is absolutely a consideration as it is for people in Gibraltar as well with respect to Spain. Border control is one of the crucial parts of being a country and with the agreement you could literally have a situation where going from Northern Ireland to Dublin, different countries, has no controls at all; but go from NI to London- the same country- and you'd have to go through customs and passport control. No, but their position and being backed by the EU made in impossible for May to win. But, realistically, no backstop would just reduce the margin she lost by instead of making it winnable.

Yeah more or less, but as Unionists they simply could not support the deal offered, even if a hard exit and hard border was the alternative. Their raison d'être is preservation of the union, they c/would as much vote for May's deal despite the poor alternative as Lincoln c/would vote (well, support/ sponsor I guess) for secession for the Confederacy despite the poor alternative. What exactly they wanted instead, well, so far as I am aware they've been a bit equivocal on it since Brexit was unpopular in NI in general and even a lot of unionists like the open borders with Ireland and to preserve the Good Friday agreement which a hard Brexit technically would break. They were just in an impossible position with no good outcomes for them.

Voting down the Brexit deal was what they wanted, so they now (already) have that. The 'backstop' provision for Irish/ Northern Irish integration was absolute anathema to the DUP as (fairly extreme) unionists, as soon as the agreement was voted down the backstop went with it so they had what they want. They never made the issue one of Confidence and neither did May so were never going to withdraw overall Support for the government over it, especially since it's been obvious it wouldn't pass since before christmas.

Where is it implied that we're talking about a trilogy? As far as I know, nowhere. There's a bit of a default expectation that a computer game series will be a trilogy- the typical life of a hardware and software cycle usually allows for production of 3 games on the same engine, and economies of scale, reuse of assets and familiarity with the technology allows for quicker and cheaper (theoretically) production of sequels. People also get attached to characters and want to see them further. If all other things were equal and sales were sufficient I'd expect there would be a PoE3, and that being the end for the watcher character and series (but not setting). The MS buyout and Deadfire not meeting expectations may change that, at least the stories for PoE and Deadfire were self contained.

Increasing sentences on appeal does happen, but it's obviously retaliation for the Huawei exec being detained. They even passive aggressively used near verbatim the same legalist ('respect the processes of our legal system please') statements Kanada used to Chinese criticism when they detained Meng. Not that I have much sympathy for Kanada there. US has regularly used its Iran sanctions to extort foreign banks, this time they've tried it on someone with clout. If Kanada didn't want to get blowback they shouldn't honour dubious and obviously politically motivated US warrants on people transiting their country and should stick to pissing off weaksauce like the Saudis instead. At least one of the Kanadians China have nabbed recently almost certainly is a spy as well (as is mr 4 passports who was nabbed in Russia, indeed he's about as obvious a disclaimable asset as you can get). It's not like the whole Huawei thing is even about having secure systems and whatnot, it's about making sure there are NSA backdoors built into everything instead. Bit better than predicted, but not in way that it matters. Tomorrow's no confident vote and next weeks new plan are bit more interesting, but if something miraculous don't happen to unite the parliament then UK will leave EU without any additional agreement. It was considerably worse for May than predicted as the worst analysis was around a -200 loss, and the worst defeat for a government in modern history. Not really 'better' for those who wanted to stay in Europe either as the Tories who crossed the floor are euroskeptics and won't vote for a second referendum or to stay which is what the remainers want. No confidence vote won't go through either as turkeys won't vote for an early christmas; the DUP already has what it wanted (no back door Irish union, as they saw it) as do the euroskeptics (what they saw as a 'soft' EU membership rather than withdrawal) so they'll vote for the government and that gives a majority. They'd need remain Tories to cross the floor which is highly unlikely as it would almost certainly end their careers.

Theresa May didn't even get 1/3 support for her Brexit Agreement, losing by 230 votes. That's more than 100 of her own MPs voting against her.

Well, take that argument all the way back and you have ... God, right? But if God created the Universe, where was He before that? In a larger Universe? Who created that? Sorry, I'm not trying to create a controversy here... Which oddly enough is the same point that science ends up at when looking at the Big Bang- no ability to tell what came before/ where it came from and what caused it plus special pleading to make it work (inflation theory/ universal constants that aren't actually constant really ain't much different from God Did It if you can't have a proper scientific reason). I far prefer the Big Bounce hypothesis since it doesn't need a before and after or beginning and ending, it just needs for the universe to exist and expand/ contract every 50 billion years or so in an overall homeostatic manner. Indeed, it's a perfect circular argument where existence is its own proof and the answer to why is because it's always been that way; about as neat and tidy and irrefutable on a meta level as you can get.

Surely 'forcing VR' means every PS5 hardware SKU will have VR capability rather than forcing VR into every title released. Trying to force VR into every title would be at best asinine, at worst abjectly moronic; having the capability available to everyone on the console otoh is easily justified- and presumably, like Kinect for the xbone, if it ends up being a bit of a dog it can be cut to save some $$$ whatever they say now. Ubiquitous VR is one of those things that is always a year or two away yet barely ever gets any closer practically. Same with cloud/ streaming gaming services, they've been the next big thing and only two years off for a decade.

Or time travel. We can't conclusively prove that the 'aliens' tinkering with our history aren't actually human chrononauts from the future coming back to help us with stuff and every viewer of Ancient Aliens knows what that means: if you cannot conclusively disprove it then it must be true. At least that theory has the advantage of being a Closed Circle argument.

That's a developer leak though, if you're developing for PS5 then PS4 back compatibility isn't relevant since you're, well, developing for PS5 and not PS4. There's not really any reason for either him or Sony to mention it in that context. Given it's an AMD CPU/ GPU combo and the GPU is even the same underlying architecture (GCN) as PS4 the only reason you wouldn't have bc is due to non technical issues- Sony not wanting to do it because they want new game sales, especially if the PS5 is loss leading and they need the licensing fees to break even.

That's a different aspect of support, support for existing installs and current users. Dropping support on new hardware is also only done for the consumer market where MS has more overt influence and where ASUS/ GB/ MSI/ ASRock etc may tacitly favour dropping support as it saves them costs. So far as I am aware the big corporate PC suppliers like Dell and HP and Lenovo make new computers that are win7 capable for corporate use since a lot of big volume users still use win7 and won't be pushed to win10 until it suits them. Corporate PCs are usually awful when viewed from the consumer segment though, and typically use very low grade/ conservative (though generally reliable, since service replacement is a big cost) components that are meant to be simple to support.

It's early days still. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of Sony's leaks- especially the VR one- were aimed at Microsoft, they won the prerelease PR battle vs xbox handily last time in part by having some strategic leaks that weren't accurate but which got MS into a hole- eg leaks said PS4 would be always online, it was only after MS formally said the xbox would be so as well that Sony yelled psych and said the PS4 would be offline capable. Yeah, that's way more RAM than a full desktop OS uses- win10 has extraneous guff to it that a console doesn't need and doesn't need that much RAM. Some sort of segmented memory set up where 8 is used by the GPU and 8 by the CPU (and OS and other overhead aspects) would seem a lot more likely as that could have design advantages but even then 8GB is a little shy for doing 4k/60fps properly and without tricks.

A fair few of the TPPA (as it is now) signers were not overly disappointed when the US pulled out. I mean, they weren't happy and would mostly have preferred the US to be there, but most of the really contentious issues in TPP were added at the behest of the US and it got a lot less opposition once the US was gone. Ironically, even though some of those controversial provisions were kept anyway. I don't think anyone is looking forward to re-renegotiating it with the US though. That's not really being similar to Hillary in particular though, that's basically just plain old standard being a politician. Politicians will try and make their views palatable to the largest number of voters possible, if you don't you generally don't win elections. But otherwise Hillary is pretty much a dead straight typical corporate Democrat in every respect. Gabbard is a lot less tailored to getting the party hierarchy onside and at times she's completely disregarded them eg endorsing Bernie; she's also a lot less tailored in her general and policy views whereas Hillary came across as not having had a thought that wasn't vetted by focus groups beforehand. No doubt Gabbard does have some sort of message tailoring/ control going on- as above, she is a politician- but it's a lot less overt than Hillary's was. There's also very little similarity in terms of their rise and they share some considerably differences in both policy formulation and application/ theory of those policies. They have a fair few similarities on policy too, but they are in the same party. I might agree in the future though, we've had 30 years to get to know Hillary fairly well even if you don't live in the US; if I list the things I definitely know about Gabbard it's a lot shorter and there are more gaps to be filled in.

Clinton loyalists/ corporate dems are definitively holding a grudge. Going solely by people that are obviously Democrat Shareblue/ Correct the Record astroturfers: her foreign policy isn't non interventionist but really consists of loving Putin and Assad, she actually wants to bomb more muslims than peaceful mainstream pro regime change and military intervention democrats and domestically she is really a right winger and closet republican and any left wing person who votes for her instead of a sensible mainstream candidate is an idiot, Republican plant or a traitor to the party deeply misguided and not paying attention. So don't listen to them if they say anything nice about her, they're idiots closet republicans or deeply misguided; listen to me the objective voice of reason. Fortunately she's also also not got a chance, is not a threat of winning and is only running because she wants a cabinet position or to be a VP nominee so please don't bother paying attention or getting excited about her in any way because she's going to lose and drop out and is only doing it to get a cushy job later and raise her profile. Plus, plus; on the qt she's a polytheist and worships cows! Cows! Not that there's anything wrong with that and I'm fine with it, but worshiping cows! You know a lot of people won't vote for someone who worships a burger ingredient even though I would consider it if she wasn't so useless in every other respect and [mainstream candidate] wasn't so much better and doesn't worship cows. Plus Hindus have far too many vaguely androgynous multiarmed deities, very confusing*. She should worship a cloud or a burning bush like normal people instead, would be far better politically. Think I hit all the salient points in their briefing document. Pretty standard propaganda greatest hits parade. *might have added this one myself

Yeah, it's working. It's got plenty of updates so if it has been down it wasn't for long. Could be a problem with cached items, in which case a force reload of the page (ctrl shift r on most browsers) may bring it back.