You know exactly what nuance that "90%" means. I'm sure you're willing to dismiss many popular multiplayer games as all "not being worth it" but not most people. Thats of course on top of the other reasons people have.
Has nothing to do with my GPU. That's irrelevant to the points made.
First time they're being honest.
Ha ha, andrew bad, I agree, but....
You can do research and find a bunch more sources than even the wikipedia article lists, but in essence, if you are at all sexually active as an adult, you almost certainly already have herpes.
Just reality.
The stigma shouldn't be there for something this mundane.
This is stupid though. IP addresses in many homes rotate, so IP ban lists are utterly ineffective and could very well ban the wrong people.
The harms and atrocities that come from dairy and eggs are arguably worse than meat itself
Certifiably cap, just from the scale of it all. Meat production has a non insignificant amount of environmental impact.
Dairy does too, but meat, you need more animals to kill.
and the former industries drive the latter to some extent
This is exactly backwards
Vegetarianism is neither ideologically or functionally different than any other form of animal commodification.
This is so absurd on its face that I don't think you're reasonable enough to bother arguing with, and don't think anyone reading this will think you are, so I'd just be wasting my time.
Also fuck giving saudi arabia money. Sometimes its unavoidable, but this is a video game. There are other video games, but there is no regime worse than the saudi regime.
"bUt ThEy DoNt OwN tHeM yEt"
The price has been settled on, so any success from here on out absolutely does directly benefit the saudis.
The point of note, is that if we didn't have so many freeloaders, rich or middling do nothing jobs, we would have plenty more time to explore our passions.
This is a well crafted narrative, but i just don't buy it.
What did the trump admin run on last election? What are conservatives running on all over the world?
They all run on "brown man bad".
Sure there are some sprinkles of other elements in there, afterall, they have to sell their corporate overlords ideas as somehow being good for the common man, but ultimately it boils down to projecting a hierarchy where the people you talk about, are not at the bottom, and while they may be further than the top, if they can feel infinitely better than others through racism and bigotry, they're happy enough to have it.
Why do you think, to go back to American examples, that issues like which bathrooms trans people are allowed in are even "issues"? The trans people can be put into a pool of people who are , to them, worth infinitely less than they are.
Instead of solving problems in their own lives, they want to make sure that at least some folks are for sure lower than them.
To them its all relativistic, but in the worst way possible. They're fine if their lives get worse, if the lives of marginalized people get exponentially worse by comparison.
They don't see campaigns that raise all boats as being attractive.
The ones they resonate the best with don't have any indication of doing anything equitable, and instead talk vaguely about things that they haven't been conditioned to think disproportionately help the marginalized.
It should be noted, as is partially a point of this post, that those "free" things are not actually free, and are simply paid for through taxes such that they are cheaper for all.
To me, this seems like pretty much what they were expecting to do in the first place, and a classic case of pushing too far on purpose, just to back track to pretty much where they wanted to be; A plan that is a classic among big corporations.
I don't think this is good enough, because it still would make future customers wary of buying their products, just to have support for new features dropped, in some cases, just days after they buy the product.
Some could argue that they don't "owe" anyone that, but this is how the tech industry has worked for a while with its fast moving software pace. If NVidia, their only major rival, and even Intel, both continue to offer full fledged support for far longer than AMD, this continues to really dampen the reasons one would go for an AMD card.
Now AMD cards will have:
Shorter prioritized driver support
Less game support from devs (due to their lack of market share)
Fewer games covered by their game specific features (FSR4 Suite) than their main competitor (NVidia with DLSS and FG)
Trailing feature development (on average) when compared to their main rival NVidia
And users will be expected to accept this, all for a discount of typically just 50 dollars for GPUs of similar raw performance.
That seems like a very raw deal to me, and that is very unfortunate given the already greater than 90% market share NVidia commands in gaming and even higher market share in enterprise compute (AI included).
It really is an absurd set of choices to me.
If people can't rely on your products working well for typical lengths of ownership from launch, even without the super strength, radioactive mammoth in the room of NVidia, its going to be a hard sell to sell your products.
I just refuse to believe development costs enough for this to be a rational decision for them.
Maybe they think people will see this, and then think nothing of it when they go to buy their next GPU? I mean to play devils advocate from their POV, many people don't look deeply into companies and just buy based on a quick look at benchmarks.
The thing is, many buy off of even less than that, and if their enthusiast friends are telling them that AMD is not a brand to trust with GPUs, then theres going to be a big reputation problem. A reputation problem they're already struggling with from years of being known for bad drivers, that they only recently shook.
Just 1 part of the misunderstandings. Both can go to either area even if they are typically found in their respective ones.
Further, most who have herpes, even in the crotch region, will still show no recognizable symptoms and be difficult to test for.
Again, especially considering that condoms are not practically effective for preventing spread, and the results are typically not the horrendous cases you'll have remembered, the stigma still isn't worth it.
I mean, I suppose you could osculate and perform cunnilingus with dental damns, fellatio with condoms and no contact, and copulate and or engage in anal coitus in full body latex, but let's be real, because you won't be doing that, and most people who have it wont know they do, its the stigma that's the biggest problem; the same fear that drives knee-jerk reactions.