Firefox blocks statcounter tracking by default. It's an inherently flawed metric, though Firefox is definitely in the minority still vs Chrome

I think we just need to move on from this methodology of data collection. Firefox is often cited as very unpopular because it blocks statcounter tracking by default, social networks have absorbed some search volume too. I do think it makes logical sense that people are dropping 11; I did so myself last year. But this data is likely bad, so it's pointless to try and extract a reason based on it.

Look for a dvdrip. At the time the episodes were originally aired they would pre on p2p sites as like 35mb .avi's in 240p, you don't want that

It's sad, but as a crypto user I'd be sketched out enough about using a centralised hot wallet app like Exodus in an official capacity, let alone entering my private key in something installed via a 3rd party app store. This probably happens on the Play Store a few times a week, and that's on a bigger platform with a full security review process. It's ultimately unavoidable.

This makes me sad. I had so much fun growing up learning about compression and encoding, ripping, tagging, spectral analysis. Listening to 24/96 vinyl FLACs on my parents old stereo with my pinky up. Hanging out with a bunch of 40-year olds on IRC. Good times, man

For when part of the herb that's loaded in your pipe doesn't get ignited by capillary action and you need to put the flame directly to it to get it to ignite. Since you're trying to manipulate the position of the flame it's easier for your fingers to get in the way. It's more of an edge case and you can just get better at using a normal lighter, so I'd say this is just for viral marketing if it's real

edit: and djeep lighters are better for this anyway

I had a look at the marketing image they used, it appears to be a fully generated image (with the card faces inserted afterwards). It isn't really anything to do with the plugins in Photoshop. That's a deliberate conflation of things like style transfer or inpainting with full generation via diffusion from random noise. The former starts with an image input which is presumably not made by AI

Ok, now can you tell me why adjusting for inflation has a single thing to do with what the price of something should be?

Gaming is a bigger industry than Hollywood. Do you think they are running on low margins or something?

People aren't literally addicted to the habit of smoking, they're physically addicted to nicotine. It's pretty much unavoidable. Any smoker who tells you they just like the ritual, has been conditioned to think that by mentally associating the ritual with relief from the physical symptoms of nicotine withdrawal.

Sure, removing the nicotine isn't going to be an immediate barrier from continuing smoking. But the point is that once the person can no longer get nicotine from smoking, they will almost certainly make the decision to quit themselves. And that has the potential to be a more profound decision for them than simply having the product taken off the shelves and being told they can't have it.

When did we stop calling always-online "DRM"? People seem to think it's there because devs want to shoehorn in online features on SP games. It's like they completely forgot it is primarily an anti-piracy measure. An inconvenience which paying customers must bear to prevent an imagined loss of revenue from someone else. And it doesn't even achieve that.

The article you posted is from Aug 17th, and promises to release a "more complete statement", not any particular "findings" you might be expecting

That came in the form of another video Aug 26th, where they go into the changes in production processes, including changes to fact checking procedures.

Crucially they acknowledge that it wouldn't be realistic for them to simply not make any mistakes moving forward, but they detailed some procedures to mitigate the chance of it including collecting community feedback from interested subject matter experts in advance of publication. Sounded pretty reasonable to me, and the case you mentioned where they subsequently got something wrong doesn't really seem like a significant error, or one they haven't adequately addressed/corrected.

I'm not sure what else you expected? In a scenario where they have addressed the concerns to your satisfaction, what would they have done differently?

I think it's because of the original marketing for Pixel Pass. Google marketed it as being better value than other post-paid mobile phone plan arrangements in some way. It's just the same boilerplate terms under which a large proportion of mobile phones have been sold for decades in my country - so it was confusing when Google tried to sell me "a new way to buy a phone" where literally the only new thing about it was that you can get discounted Google services bundled. I wouldn't be surprised if people are getting pissed off about it now for not receiving value that was never actually offered.