Option 1: find the files for the hat inside the nohats vpk and delete them from there, so it loads defaults again
Option 2: use cleantf2+ and add the file names to dev/lists/nohats_weapons.txt so that they get ignored when generating nohats

materials/vgui/replay/thumbnails/killfeed_icons/
scripts/mod_textures.txt
scripts/mod_textures_killfeed.txt
scripts/base/mod_textures.txt

this one's a bit more extendible / futureproof so it splits things up into different files and loads them in with #base, but it's functionally equivalent to colly's icons normally except they both point to "d_images" instead of half using "dneg_images"

Sorry lads but I didn't have as much time as I expected originally with my hud, so I wasn't able to get a whole lot done with it. If the deadline is extended I would give another effort to finish, but I don't mean to pressure the decision since I will (hopefully) have more free time but can't make guarantees.

That said, one big thing that got added was transparent damage numbers, to read stacked damage numbers easier and not be painful bright yellow (it's subtle, but it's a lot better than opaque damage numbers):

https://i.imgur.com/agr5yBE.png

it's available here:
Direct: https://github.com/JarateKing/jx-hud/archive/master.zip
Source: https://github.com/JarateKing/jx-hud

as it is it wouldn't be too bad to implant over another hud if ye don't want to deal with some default elements that I haven't gotten to changing (yet)

zoom_sensitivity_ratio is independent from your aspect ratio, so 0.793471 is what you should go for on any resolution.

I did some writing about it here as well: https://github.com/JarateKing/jarconfig/blob/master/docs/zoom_sensitivity_ratio.md

You're saying this as if climate scientists are somehow unaware of other time periods. In fact they are quite aware, and graphs like that are in-part based on their work in the first place:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc03000u.html
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/lu08000d.html
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc00100w.html

The temperatures in that graph are due to a variety of factors -- sometimes it is CO2, sometimes it's not (for the record, Scotese's graph says nothing about "solar levels" and the sun does not work the way you seem to think it works). And importantly, Scotese's methodology is not very well suited for reconstructing the global mean temperature as evidenced by how few data points there are (his area of expertise is in continental positioning). Better suited methodology will give you a global mean temperature graph like:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

Which still has its problems (its logarithmic scale is kinda messy), but it does make it a bit more clear that the current rate of climate change is completely unheardof. We're projected to suddenly exit a very stable time period with a change of +8F by 2100. The shortest previous jump of the same temperature difference took several thousand years. What we are currently undergoing is not normal.

And in general, humans would not survive in these other warm time periods. If we are reasonably confident that the cause we're experiencing right now is CO2 related, that's what we should be focusing on. And that's the consensus of nearly every single credible person who's spent their life studying this.

I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to, but my understanding is that the EU is only blocking subsidizing coal mines. If the coal mine makes a profit then it's not a problem, but if it needs bailouts to keep running then it can't. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

On that note though, you should be happy to hear that by 2020 solar and wind power will be priced competitively to fossil fuels, and continue to get cheaper. In a relatively short amount of time, it wouldn't even make economic sense to keep coal mining for energy anyway.

Yeah that's something that happens in science all the time. You can read the abstract to get an idea what it's about (I included it because it makes it clear that we are actively fine-tuning the accuracy of our models, which only works if the concept behind it is essentially undisputed and well-tested).

If you're not satisfied with that one, maybe the 3 other examples and the 3 meta-analyses going over thousands of papers should be enough for you

We've known every step of that process since the 1800s. John Tyndall discovered the concept of greenhouse gases in 1859. Svante Arrhenius calculated the impact it would have if atmospheric CO2 was doubled in 1896 (though it didn't factor in everything because climate science wasn't mature at that point, but it got the jist and observed the core concept). To my knowledge, no credible papers since then have suggested otherwise in either of these -- and they are simple enough concepts that if there was anything wrong about them, it wouldn't have taken us over a century to find out if they were actually false somehow (hint: they're true).

That said, we did manage to further support them beyond any doubt:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.475774
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc05400j.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2141868/
along with four-digits worth of other papers agreeing with the same

To support all of the above, we have papers meta-analyzing that 97% of climate scientists & papers agree with man-made (or anthropogenic) climate change:
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

(for those who aren't knowledgeable about the science community, 97% is really fucking good and may as well be considered scientific fact).

tldr: man-made climate change is absolutely supported by the scientific community, and there is far beyond enough research and evidence to take action on it

Man-made climate change isn't even just a hard scientific fact, it's trivially true. We know the amount that certain gasses contribute to a greenhouse effect -- this is an experiment you can do in your backyard with a little effort. We know the rough amount we've been pumping into the atmosphere, double-checked by measuring the composition of the atmosphere. Do some basic multiplication and you see that there is an increase in average temperature. And what do ya know, we've also noticed that exact same increase as our greenhouse gas levels increased.

What scientists don't always agree on are the runaway effects and the tipping points. How long on our current trajectory until phytoplankton dies en masse, releasing amounts of CO2 that we won't be able to deal with? Release of CO2 in the thawing permafrost? What about increase in heatwaves, droughts, and forest fires? How about when England becomes uninhabitable due to extremely humid heat?

It's important to note that those are all "if this model is correct, things are much worse than we thought." We already know for 100% fact that we are causing climate change and it is fucking things up -- the models just range from "this is a significant problem that will be painful to live with" to "most of the world will die."

https://i.imgur.com/B8CkU1o.png

https://i.imgur.com/3OwJABY.png

That wouldn't be fullbright, that'd be the flat textures messing up how they're generated (which I'm still looking into).

Fullbright will still cause (different) issues in sv_pure 2 though and afaik there isn't much I can do about that

Alternatively just don't use the resize option. If it doesn't get resized, it won't look like this in sv_pure and will just be the default textures.

Some will (nohats, for example), some will look different (flat textures with resizing, see above), and some won't (flat textures without resizing).

Haven't been able to make as much progress as I'd have liked, but two of the more interesting things I've done so far:

https://i.imgur.com/x0CnDQC.png

blur shadows aren't too uncommon anymore, but gradient text is still pretty unique -- trying some soft gradients with this one and think they turned out pretty good.

https://i.imgur.com/VPGR9KJ.png

both types of the killfeed using white icons, means the background can be the same color (and just change their transparency). Internally this is done using colly's killfeed icons, except the mod_textures.txt is redone to be update-proof and somewhat cleaner.

You go to a casino slot machine. It has a software error that means you win big every roll, instead of once in a hundred rolls. You, and thousands of others, try to do this as much as possible before it's patched since you fully know it's an unintended exploit. A casino employee notices this and points to the disclaimer on the machine saying "in case of software error, winnings are voided and payments refunded." You don't get the money that you shouldn't have gotten in the first place, and act like you were the one ripped off when they didn't let you abuse their system.

This is also what actually happens in these cases: https://vegasclick.com/games/slots/malfunctions
Valve would have an even stronger case because it's all virtual hats inside their own service, and they reserve the right to do whatever they want with your items.

Probably revert what they can and hand out an item, for everyone's troubles. The cheater's lament got mentioned a few times, but they also did it with the glitched circuit board. It was never as extreme as this, but it's not the first time they've had to deal with people getting items they weren't supposed to.

Glad to see another, always fun to compete in contests
Getting everything in rule 3 is gonna be a lot but I don't think it'd be too bad with some borrowing from other huds

Bold of you to assume everyone's played mann power