These are good rays.
Credit to Ahdok
These are good rays.
Credit to Ahdok
How is Photoshop different from Gimp?
Photoshop is a subscription-based graphic design and photo editing program with a large catalog of advanced features that go beyond simple photo retouching. It’s the go-to tool for experienced photographers, graphic designers, web developers, and film editors. But at the same time, its tools are approachable enough for beginners and hobbyists looking to tweak images for work or create artwork in their free time.
Okay cool, that’s all technically true or unverifiable. What makes Gimp different, Adobe?
Uh oh. What did Ubisoft do this time?
They only talk about BG&E2 when they are about to be raked over the coals for some heinous shit they did.
The Case of the Golden Idol. It’s a great little detective game with an interesting premise.
This is true. Albeit, a little misleading as the vast majority of that gas will be converted to CO2 rather than released as methane, but this province wont ever do anything to help the environment as the only goal.
I’m happy to take the wins where I can. This is not the best choice, but it’s still a positive change.
Isnt this basically just a late 2000s take on what The Lost Boys was in the mid 80s?
I wonder if that would sometimes be a desirable trait in farmed bees in areas with a lot of predators or competitors.
Like, the human knows that protection will be required and will suit up accordingly, but the ants, wasps or bears that try to rob the hive will be much less successful.
Its a tax scheme.
The pharmacy claims this medication is worth $275, insurance covers $40, and then they get as much as they can out of the patient while claiming the rest as a loss they can write off on their taxes.
US healthcare is stupid.
He was a raving homeless man who frequently masturbated in public and antagonized anyone who would approach him. However, beyond all that he was one of the smartest people in the ancient world and lived life never comporimising his principles.
You dont need to remind us to sympathize with the people you laid off, Phil. Thats the whole reason why your PR is bad right now.
Its the best when you buy an LP and get a download code for the album as well.
I listen to LPs mostly when I want music to be the primary thing im doing. There is a whole ritual involved with putting a record on. Whereas, sometimes I just want to listen to something while I’m doing dishes or driving, and then playing an MP3 over a Bluetooth speaker from my phone is just infinitely more convenient.
The scale on this graph cant be accurate.
Its not a similar jump in effot between a parakeet and a cat as a cat and a horse.
Mid-range GPUs still exist, they just dont get the same coverage as the top-end cards. An RTX 4060 is set at $300 which is much cheaper than a PS5 or Series X
This is an interesting take. Historically, the main benefits to console gaming were 2 things:
Consoles are cheaper than PCs
Games require no config and and are guaranteed to be compatible
Nether of these is really the case anymore. For the price of a PS5 or a Series X you could get a midrange gaming PC with similar performance.
Regarding complexity, we kind of met in the middle. Long gone are the days when you could just pop a disc in the tray of your playstation or xbox and start playing, every game requires an install now. And on the PC side, you very rarely need to configure settings to get a game to a playable state. Hell, you dont really even need to manually install drivers anymore.
Of course, as the article points out, none of this applies to Nintendo and those consoles are still worth buying.
My guess for the future is that if Microsoft and Sony are going to hang around in the hardware space, they’re going to make something akin to the steam deck, but locked to their own storefront. And then they’ll wonder why people are still choosing PCs over their hardware.
Im almost positive that Andrew Wakefield has caused more harm to modern medicine than any other person in the last 200 years.
That’s exactly the problem.
Under the current system, people that produce creative works as their job are forced to monetize them. Until we live in a post-scarcity world where everyone’s needs are met, like Star Trek, we have to deal with capitalist problems. To say otherwise is to ensure a system where artists and authors are unable to survive. Currently, the copyright system is good enough™ that creating art can be profitable enough that they are not destitute.
Simply because the technology exists to endlessly replicate and distribute art, regardless of the wishes of the artist (for which it is already frequently used, if you look at piracy channels) does not mean that it should be used with reckless abandon.
Copyright is generally a good idea. There has to be some level of restriction, otherwise infinite copies of your art immediately show up and you cant make a living.
On the flipside, it harms the industry at large if the copyright is too long. There is no reason why a corporate entity should be making royalties on something long after it’s creator has died.
So, where is the middle point? What is a good length of time to let an artist exclusively sell their art without fear of someone undercutting them as soon as they make something? Personally, i think the US figured out the sweet spot before all the changes. 14 years, plus a single 14 year extension you have to register. 28 years is enough time that you can make a career, but also not long enough to harm the creative process or prevent art from reaching the masses while its relevant.
Im sure that there are cases of both.
Some people probably wouldn’t work if all their basic needs were met.(No judgement, i’d definitely consider it myself) And some billionaires probably are hard workers(although that is definitely not why they’re billionaires)
To be fair, from about 12-16 is a pretty rough group of years.