Ah yes, the real cause of racism is that white americans are afraid of loud noises.

The whole "trust me I'm scientific, I posted one statistic and then extrapolated wild conclusions with no backing" schtick is a real stupid trend. It should be pretty telling that these types never cite their sources. Those statistics come from Project Implicit, and these are the the conclusions that they make in their paper Exposure to Racial Out-Groups and Implicit Race Bias in the United States (2015):

Any attempt to definitively say "yes this is why that is" is unscientific mumbo. The actual researchers' best estimation is:

Which does not suggest anything you're saying.

Mastercoms and I discussed this a bit and experimented with it, and I figure it'd be worth sharing results here. I went as far as writing a program to roughly mirror what tf2's fps_max does (same method for frame limiting, but no frame logic or threading or anything like that). The model could be improved to be more accurate, but it's good enough to tell if frames are consistent or not.

Compared to the expected frametime from fps_max, individual frametimes would vary anywhere from ~3ms slower (under cap) to ~1ms faster (above cap). Over time, these would average out to slightly lower than fps_max (<1ms under). These numbers depend on a few things (what you set fps_max to does change these a bit, for one), but it's a significant variation in any case.

This is alright for most of fps_max's uses, since most of the time you don't really care about this variation. But monitors absolutely do, especially when you're talking about "matching frames to monitor refreshes." fps_max 2x or 2x+1 is based off this idea, and the idea doesn't work out in reality.

TLDR: fps_max isn't consistent enough for monitors, don't use 2x / 2x+1 or any other fps_max based off your monitor refresh rate. Mastercom's advice of being slightly higher than you can get ingame is what you should follow.

You just need to keep your fps below 1000, so you can go closer than 800. I don't know the details of the problem since I've never gotten close to 1000 fps, but it might already be fixed, or it might still be a problem with the variations mentioned above (so something like 997 might be safest).

As mastercoms mentioned a bit, your load times are affected by your fps_max -- things load faster if they have to spend less time re-rendering menus. Ideally there'd be another fps_max for menus (like in csgo and dota) but there isn't anything like that in tf2 currently.

if you don't have anything fancy like gsync and you don't worry about overheating, uncapped will always give the least latency

any magic number (like x2 or x2+1) is based off the misconception that your frame renders will roughly line up with your monitor refreshes. They don't, and even a stable capped fps has very inconsistent frame times (they just average out to slightly below the cap, but individual frames can vary significantly), so you're gimping it unnecessarily.

Now if you do worry about overheating, or you really want a consistent capped fps for some reason, anything above 144 will be mostly fine, though increasing it higher as long as it's stable is generally better.

Mastercomfig doesn't touch model files itself, just some model locations listed out in a text file as easter eggs for events. For example: https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Saucers It doesn't remove much, but it's pretty harmless to have as a file, and stays updated easily.

Mods that actually nullify the model file itself (like this, nohats, cleantf2+, etc) can remove a lot of props / cosmetics. It's more powerful for modders but also more work and requires work to keep updated.

https://i.imgur.com/5HIyuDG.png

Alberta and to a lesser extent Saskatchewan (both firmly conservative) having growing separatist movements, since they're very angry about not getting a Conservative government (and ironically voting so Conservative means they have no Liberal seats, and therefore have no representation within the leading party).

Who knows if it'll eventually reach the levels that Quebec used to have (when it came to a referendum, 49.5% voted to leave) but I wouldn't call our politics sane right now.

Aye, how's the saying go? "Canadians don't vote for who they want, they vote against the people they don't want" or something along those lines.

Trudeau has had his scandals and isn't ideal, but a Liberal minority probably upsets everyone the least (Liberals happy that they still have government and don't have to deal with Scheer, Conservatives happy that it's only a minority government and they'll still get the say on a lot of split issues, Bloc and NDP happy that they got pretty good results and will be decently represented, Green happy that they've got another seat). People's Party doesn't really have anything to show for it, but the more surprising thing is that they got any media focus in the first place.

At least in PEI (where locally Conservatives form minority government with Greens as the opposition party) the general mood I saw was "I'm not excited about Trudeau, but I really want to avoid Scheer, and I'll strategically vote to avoid that." May and Singh appealed to a decent amount of voters here (especially with Bevan-Baker's support of May) but ultimately most people were alright with Trudeau and didn't want Scheer.

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/10/atlantic-canada-enjoying-the-2-hours-when-rest-of-canada-pays-attention-to-it/

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."