Skate or Die

Despite Microsoft's claims that "if you're a gamer, Windows 11 was made for you" you will need to watch out for future prebuilt PCs with the new OS factory installed. That's because the Big M is enabling more security features in PCs by default, and one in particular can seriously tank gaming performance.

In our testing, that can add up to as much as a 28% drop in average frame rates. And you thought the TPM 2.0 restrictions were a pain...

That sort of frame rate delta is like dropping down an entire tier of graphics card and, in these days where GPUs are so hard to come by, Microsoft gimping the performance of the chip in your newbuild machine would surely be hard for gamers to stomach.

The issue is Virtualization-Based Security (VBS), a setting introduced into Windows 10 which uses hardware and software virtualisation to enhance the security of your system. It basically creates an isolated subsystem that helps prevent malware from screwing your PC.

Just call him St. Imonius.

Pe-production of the game began in 2010, with production starting in 2011. They didn't start accepting backers until 2012, but realistically this game has been in production for 10ish years. Five more and they will have defeated Duke Nukem Forever.

"Chris can't make a short video."

He can't make a crowd-funded game in less than 10 years either.

I can't recall, have any CIG games made it out of Alpha yet at this soon to be half-way point between 2021 and 2022?

As of March, PS5 has so far sold during its lifetime 6.29million consoles - with the Xbox Series X selling just over four million. Really not that big of a gap when you figure in people who are brand exclusive.

The PC version is a travesty. It is going to require a lot of patching or some user mods.

Only Marauder Shields can save us again.

To be faiiiiiiiir,

He probably is not 'leaving' voluntarily. I suspect his is one of the many heads to roll over 2077.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Feb 11, 2021, 16:07:

LOC wrote on Feb 11, 2021, 15:36:
DICE LA are the guys who fixed Battlefield 4, gave us the CTE and CMP. They also made some of the best DLC and maps for various BF games. I'm sure if anyone left at any DICE studio can make a good BF game it's them.

This is probably the best take on this, assuming DICE LA hasn't had a major staff turnover, they were *mostly* responsible for the best Battlefield.

*Sighs* Alright, I'm tentatively interested. Again. In Battlefield.


They were responsible for BF2142?
Although I haven't played anything remotely competitive multiplayer in years.

I take the free games, but I still won't buy exclusives. Even more so now that they are doubling down on it versus their earlier stance that they would slowly phase out exclusives.

Happy hatching day, Fornica.

If it is, I now have to get it since that is my Birthday.

It's listed, but no purchase price or option.

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 8, 2020, 01:42:
Bill Maher hit the spot a few weeks back.
He jumped on all the idiots last election that didn't like Hillary so threw away their vote for a write-in candidate or the green party or the socialist dumb fucks or some such claptrap.
We gotta protest man , hey man , I'm not voting for Hillary man cuz I don’t like her man.

Failing to remember that the United States is a two-party system and any other vote means fuckall.

This go-round we had a choice between a plate of a boiled chicken with an amazing vice presidential choice or a plate of shit and shattered glass with a heaping serving of sycophantic mashed potatoes for vp.

When all votes are tallied, seven million more people will have chose the chicken.

And some of use will have refused to settle for either. I'm nominally a conservative that agrees with liberal things like gender equality and abortion. I don't agree with the severe measures of the green new deal or biden's position on gun control. Maybe that means my vote was wasted. I choose to consider it as standing for my beliefs.

Addendum: Additionally, it is my firm opinion that as long as we just continue to choose the limited two party option, nothing will change. Do you think a Republican will never be elected again as President? Of course they will. Nobody believed Trump would win the first time, but he did. It will happen again as long as we don't choose other options.

Remember, at other points in our history as a nation, it seemed impossible that a libertarian would be elected to anything beyond a local position. But over time we have had independents, libertarians, and other parties be elected all the way up to the legislative branch of the nation. If we just stop there and say, "We'll only ever have a Republican or Democrat as President" then we might as well scrap the entire thing. It was only a couple of decades ago that we had a solid 3rd party candidate for the Presidency that actually cost Bush Sr. the election vs Clinton. We need to work on that, not just accept what they give us.

Nucas wrote on Nov 8, 2020, 00:29:

Mordhaus wrote on Nov 7, 2020, 22:33:
If they did so to further their career, yes. If a site that is well known for posting factual data to debunk conspiracy theories is not proof enough for you, I can't help you.

have you noticed that you're filling in the blanks here?

a guy she was dating appointed her to positions in medical assistance and unemployment benefits. 8 years later, she decided to run for public office.

what you are bringing to your reading: she wanted those positions, and she used sex to get them. this interpretation is not supported by the facts, this is coming from inside your head.

from that snopes article you keep talking about: "At the time, Brown had a reputation for filling many openings with his personal associates and inner circle; when Harris vacated the Appeals Board gig, he replaced her with his longtime buddy Philip S. Ryan."

do you think philip used his body to get that position? i know you don't, so why is it different? i'm super curious! (you're going to have to write mental fan fiction and i'm really looking forward to reading it)

She was dating a much older, powerful man who appointed her to 2 positions that helped launch her career. A honorable person would not accept appointments from someone who they had sexual ties to, simply on the knowledge that sometime in the future that would look EXTREMELY bad. Would you take appointed government positions from someone you were having (or had) sex with? I know I wouldn't, because it says something about a person's character.

Later, that same person used their influence to the fullest to help her get a major government position, an elected one this time, DA of San Francisco. Again, would an honorable person say to themselves, "Hey, I am sure the fact that we used to have sex has no bearing on his current feelings towards me. I'm sure it's not a conflict of interest"? Now from that point on, there is no proof that he assisted her further with his influence. At least none I can find.

It all falls within what you are willing to accept. Do you accept that someone, male or female, should use connections that they forged in a sexual relationship to further the start of their career? If you do, then nothing to see here. She used her connections to get started and that is not something you see as dishonorable or suspicious. If you don't accept that logic, then you must view a person who does things like this as someone reprehensible. It is, in the end, your judgement to make. I consider her to be dishonorable.

I am not saying Trump or anyone else is more honorable. I'm not saying that Trump was a good president. I'm saying that I don't like Biden for his policies and I consider Mrs. Harris to be damaged goods. That is my opinion, which I based on information that is available to anyone. I'm sure women are pressured like this at the start of their career to bend to the will of someone in power all the time. Brown is a terrible person in this as well. Does every woman choose to sacrifice the appearance of honor to get ahead, no. Are they unfairly subjected to it more than men, absolutely. But that does not mean they should not be held accountable for their choices.

Let's take her completely out of the equation. Let's say a young male police officer finds themselves in a position where they are offered a portion of payoff money so as to make them part of the corruption, that way they cannot later report it without taking the blame as well. This is part of a systematic corruption that has existed for decades. Should they take the money and dishonor themselves, knowing it is the safe thing to do, or should they do there best to expose it at the cost of their future career?

Yeah, it's the plot of Serpico. Which is based on the true story of Frank Serpico. His future career was ruined and he could have died. He was honorable. If he had taken the money and kept his mouth shut, then we wouldn't know anything about the corruption in the NYPD back in the 70's. Cops still cover for each other today, because it is the easy way. It doesn't matter race, sex, or creed. You can take the handout or you can do it on your own.

1badmf wrote on Nov 8, 2020, 00:04:
regarding kamala harris, this is what i said earlier in a facebook post:

"the stupidest shit i've seen last few days is my republican friends, telling me kamala harris is this horrible person, meanwhile YOU VOTED FOR THAT AMORAL SOCIOPATH TRUMP. like, the lack of self-awareness and/or hypocrisy is astounding. anyone that supported trump has lost all moral authority to judge the character of others. you can't say harris is a bad person while at the same time support a likely tax evading/sexual assaulting/pathologically lying/racist piece of shit like trump."

i actually don't know her situation all that well, but i highly doubt she's anywhere near as bad as all the evil shit trump's done.

I don't support Trump. Does that mean I must therefore like Biden and his running mate?

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2020, 22:28:

Mordhaus wrote on Nov 7, 2020, 22:25:

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2020, 22:22:

Mordhaus wrote on Nov 7, 2020, 22:19:

Mordhaus wrote on Nov 7, 2020, 21:52:
* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Nov 7, 2020, 22:08. Reason: Intolerance (rule 2)

No ethnic slurs, sexism, homophobic language, or other forms of intolerance.

I didn't use any ethnic slurs.

I didn't say she didn't deserve to be VP because she was a woman, which would be sexism. If you claim a documented case that exists in the news media and on Snopes is sexism, I strongly disagree.

I didn't use homophobic language.

If you are fitting this in under the vague definition of intolerance, then obviously I have no place on these forums anymore. I repeat, I alluded to a KNOWN fact that I can't list here or you'll just nip this post as well. Don't believe me, look it up. Just search her name and Willie Brown.

Ok

Did she date Willie Brown? Yes.

Was Willie Brown married? Yes, but estranged. It wasn't like she was a mistress. Unless you're a puritan.

Did it help her career? No. She didn't get into politics until years later.

Did she do it for her career? Show even a shred of evidence.

Is it misogyny? I don't know, have you ever accused a male politician of sleeping his way to VP? Think hard about why you probably haven't.

What's True
Harris did date former San Francisco Mayor and State Assembly Speaker Willie Brown for a period of time between 1994 to 1995. In his capacity as speaker, Brown appointed her to two political posts — first to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, and then to the Medical Assistance Commission.

That is from snopes. Would you like more evidence?

It has nothing to do with her sexuality. If it was a male person who slept around to get ahead, I would post the same thing.

"Slept around."

Do you describe men having a relationship with someone as "sleeping around?"

And no, you proved nothing other than a bias against women you'll never acknowledge. You won't look at your desperation to demean her, nor the manner and terms you do so

If they did so to further their career, yes. If a site that is well known for posting factual data to debunk conspiracy theories is not proof enough for you, I can't help you.

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2020, 22:26:

Mordhaus wrote on Nov 7, 2020, 22:23:

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 7, 2020, 21:27:

jdreyer wrote on Nov 7, 2020, 16:08:
Seriously, those Republican Lincoln Project guys are scary.

That's not the half of it.
Lincoln Project Founder, Steve Schmidt, says Faux Noises' Cucker Tarlson is frontrunner for the 2024 gop nomination.

It ain't sounding like the Lincoln Project will have any free time leftover to attack Democrats what with the current state of cray cray in the GOP.

I would also like to point out that you don't seem to have an issue with other posters using actual defamatory names toward conservative figures. Just when someone says something about the new VP, something actually factual, they get zonked.

What you said wasn't factual. It was taking a fact and stretching it beyond the point of breaking, all because you want to believe the worst of someone, in a way meant to demean her and take away from her accomplishments, in a manner historically only done to women.

It's like me saying that Scottish people are all crazy because they invented golf. Yes, Scottish people invented golf, that's a fact. That doesn't make my claim a fact.

See how you took a fact and made it an utterly misogynistic bit of conspiracy theory drivel?

It is not conspiracy theory. Snopes is a known, accepted debunking site. It is a known fact that she had a relationship with a married person who was an elected official. That official appointed her to two government positions and later used their influence to help her become District Attorney. How is this a lie or being misogynistic?