sadly, no. Anticheat Systems are designed to be paranoid as fuck. So even some readout of the hardware used that WINE handles a tad differently than Windows might trip it.

Just because a cable like that blows y’alls fuses?!

I posted your meme to a friend of mine and I’ld ike to relay his response to you:

ah quality memage

I feel you, brother. Come on over and crack a nice and sparkly 9v with me.

That’s what happens around any toilet in a 2km radius when Taco Bell has a major sale.

I got to backpedal a little here. This is the file: https://www.printables.com/de/model/163302-worlds-best-css-developer-trophy I mixed it up with this one, which is actually a joke about misbehaving 3d printers: https://www.printables.com/de/model/195629-3d-printing-trophy-layer-shifting

Knowing the original model, that’s less funny than the OG one.

Same in German.

Everyday I’m javelin

How are you getting change?

What good is cash gonna do if the networked cash register doesn’t open anymore?

Oh, you actually believed that story? Whoops. Sorry! It was actually me who ate your Cheetos and downed your Vodka.

It doesn’t. It will require you to reboot for every god-damned line of code that has changed.

Na, nothing. Did an update today. Nothing bad happened at al, Because why would it?

I really have a hard time deciding if that is the scandal the article makes it out to be (although there is some backpedaling going on). The crucial point is: 8% of the decisions turn out to be wrong or misjudged. The article seems to want us to think that the use of the algorithm is to blame. Yet, is it? Is there evidence that a human would have judged those cases differently? Is there evidence that the algorithm does a worse job than humans? If not, then the article devolves onto blatant fear mongering and the message turns from “algorithm is to blame for deaths” into “algorithm unable to predict the future in 100% of cases”, which of course it can’t…

Ouch

Just dont take ibuprofen for every little thing and you should be good.

I dislike that a) it’s considered binary, while the vast majority of people will not be even close to either extreme b) people put themselves into those extremes anyway, throw around the wildest (and mostly useless) definitions of what “being an introvert” is supposed to mean, more often than not dripping with victim mentality c) people use their supposed status akin to a neurodiversity d) people openly blaming others for not being allowed to be like they are because others dare to be like they are (“I have it so hard in life because I’m an introvert in a world full of extroverts”) e) people define large chunks of themselves around some label they largely defined themselves and want this label to be respected as if it was a real thing, an illness almost. f) people define large chunks of themselves around some label that is just meant to very loosely describe some aspect of a human being’s character, not the whole human

Let’s see how many “definitions” of supposed “introverts” or “extroverts” we get this time. It’s pop-psychology BS, people. Nothing more.

https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C4E12AQEGPH7VJi4OAA/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1520229646637?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=8W56EPHLgtQB7JfX1LsYKQB1Rt2XcPEAsrUSYiashJ4