If you read VALVe reviews from ex-employees (and take them with a grain of salt), it seems pretty established that teams with old devs and no future plans/release schedules are more often than not very toxic and that joining them is frowned upon as they should be choked out of the company.
My guess is that the team knows how to play the VALVe employee meta very well and won't get fired for being idle, possibly because of job security (nobody wants to touch TF2), possibly because nobody minds them.
Once again, grain of salt.

done

done

So fucking hyped for this content. Thanks so much, dev team, looking fresh as fuck. Keep it up.

done

Ask there: https://forums.tf2center.com/

added

already taken

You and they should connect to your 77.x.x.x IP (http://ip4.me/)
192.168.x.x is your local network

What do you mean when you say "I forwarded the ports [on VirtualBox]"? What did you change to your VM's network configuration?

The public IP should be your router's IP.

Alternatively, you could just run the server directly on Windows, it should be easier to setup and you won't lose performance due to virtualization.

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

(1100 u/s) × (roundtrip ping + reaction time + time needed to physically dodge)

for a scout on the ground, model being 32u wide, moving at 400u/s, this would end up being something like
(1100 u/s) × (100 ms + 600 ms + 80 ms)
= 858 u

^ this is flawed because movement speed isn't instantaneous, but for the sake of not pulling out calculus which i never learned at school, it's easier

if you want to know what source units look like: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Dimensions

done

https://twitter.com/PlayApex/status/1107688701998432258
https://www.ea.com/games/apex-legends/battle-pass
in 25 hours, 10 AM PST
https://time.is/PST

Questions to "sigafoo" on the "stats infographic" posted above:

What/which was the hypothesis?
What was the conclusion?
What were the sample sizes?
Was a "gullywash" week used in the case of UGC?
How do you define "game being broken"?
How does "average round length" relate to your definition of "game being broken"?
Is it possible that "average round length" in the case of RGL is influenced by the quality of match-ups due to high skill disparity rather than the format?
Who are "theorists" and what was the point in mentioning them?

Is this the format you're going to use when communicating with VALVe?
If not, will you publish what you send?
Will you adopt the "statistical report" format to communicate your statistical study?
Would you be willing to postpone sending to VALVe in order to gather criticism on your work?

Do you understand the implications of claiming data without context as unquestionable truth?
If so, will you refrain from creating more "infographics" without references to more serious analysis?

Are you aware of how important it is to use proper English when communicating statistics?
Will you make sure to proofread in order to avoid errors like "restrictve", "should of"?

Thanks