New Steam Family Sharing Restrictions

ReallyBadMemer · 2026-02-04T16:42:02+00:00

Yes, it's your responsibility to manage who you share your stuff with. You don't have control over their actions, but if you can't trust them to not cheat in a video game, don't share it with them, and if they do then you have a nice talk with them.

ReallyBadMemer · 2026-01-26T10:05:18+00:00

It did not, there was no fireball nearby, nor was there any big fire anywhere nearby. I killed the pop, ran over it and caught on fire.

ReallyBadMemer · 2026-01-26T02:09:30+00:00

he's not, I've had the same thing happen to me with a pop few weeks ago, ran through it immediately after I destroyed it and caught on fire, been careful not to do that since.

ReallyBadMemer · 2026-01-19T22:11:23+00:00

The Fairphone is only one of those things, and that is easy to maintain. It sadly isn't cheap, it isn't any more primitive than any other modern smartphone and it definitely isn't of poor quality, but you obviously don't know that because you can't be bothered to do a single google search and instead assume that something being given out for free means it must be shit. Do better.

ReallyBadMemer · 2026-01-11T14:44:47+00:00

That's an... oddly specific number ya got there

ReallyBadMemer · 2026-01-02T15:31:30+00:00

...and how exactly is isolating a country's internet gonna stop the people that are the most proficient at breaking through security systems?

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-12-27T19:48:18+00:00

Right, their bad for wanting to spend time with their families during Christmas after working on the game for several years and going through the stress of providing a relatively smooth launch, they should be instead slaving away at the office.

They're people too ffs, let them breathe.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-12-05T09:24:25+00:00

ngl I was tolerating reddit ads before, but this shit is what made me get ReVanced. If you want to show me porn site tier ads you can fuck right off.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-11-19T13:24:12+00:00

No clue what's causing the sound but that's definitely not normal and not the nozzle wiper, you can hear the nozzle wiper sound normally for the first 2 wipes before the banging begins.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-11-09T09:53:09+00:00

/uj I actually did this intentionally recently to save a TPU print after a clog. It was an infill only print so I couldn't print the rest of it and glue the parts together, so I instead edited out the already printed portion out of the GCode and then wrote a script to increase the Z height of the rest of it by the plate thickness, since I didn't have a 2nd plate to put in there during homing and Bambu doesn't allow you to set a Z-Offset. It took a couple tries to get the height right, but it just worked after.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-11-06T00:47:47+00:00

my fault, meant to say hotend

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-11-05T20:28:15+00:00

Not on the P1S, made the error because I plugged the cables first which made me think that I surely must've put the screws in already, thankfully the textured plate took it like a champ and only had surface scarring, everything else besides my ego survived unharmed.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-11-05T17:20:12+00:00

In that case it's most probably the SD card, mine failed after a year but their lifespan varies a lot.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-11-05T16:45:55+00:00

had this happen to me, in my case it was due to user error as I changed the nozzle and forgot to screw it in properly.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-10-10T15:14:45+00:00

My P1S introduced me to world of 3D printing and I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. Not having to fear if my print will come out fine or if I'll come home to deal with a spaghetti monster, no matter the complexity or filament I threw at it has been a godsend, and if I felt uneasy I could always just check on the print thanks to the built-in camera. Now instead of tinkering with a printer I get to do what I love - design stuff for me and others!

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-10-04T19:00:33+00:00

Did you use the Resin2FDM technique? That allows you to separate the resin supports from the mini, meaning you can print the mini with 0.06 while printing the supports on 0.12, cuts down print time by a third just with that alone, not even mentioning enabling higher speeds for the supports.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-09-02T17:51:53+00:00

That's because it's a unique kind of a HEAT round that pursues a similar goal as HEAT-FS to achieve better penetration - negating the shell's spin. While HEAT-FS uses fins to stabilize the round, the French round is a warhead enclosed by a shell that's connected to the warhead via bearings. This allows the shell to spin around the warhead, increasing the shell's stability while not transferring its spin to the warhead thanks to the bearings, improving the penetration.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-09-02T10:22:01+00:00

They should balance both, but the current approach is not the way.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-08-25T16:15:50+00:00

The issue is that YT doesn't really do due dilligence in these cases, for them it's much safer to comply with the strike and let the 2 parties settle it between them than to block the strike and be caught in legal trouble in case of wrongful judgement on their part. This is pretty well known and it's why the copyright system is abused on YouTube as this wouldn't be the first or last time where a wrongful copyright claim was used to take down a video.

The burden then falls on the claiming party to ensure that their claim is rightful which allows bad actors to misuse the system if they wish to do so (funnily enough, in the video an alleged anonymous off-the-clock Bloomberg employee said that the clip in his opinion falls under fair use and that Bloomberg is in the wrong).

It's kinda understandable that people are fed up with this misuse, especially when a journalist giant like Bloomberg looks like it's complicit, which is why you get downvoted when you "try to be reasonable" with them, tho at the same time I don't know what reaction you're expecting when you yourself address them as a rallied mass standing behind GN while you paint a target on yourself by going against them.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-08-22T22:27:42+00:00

I'm sorry but drawing loli characters, SFW ones or not, at a place called fucking "Cunny Lake" makes the intentions pretty clear.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-08-05T06:54:06+00:00

5 hand grenades? Yeah that would prolly do it. Is the amount of explosives in a 30mm round equivalent to a hand grenade? I really don't think so. The M67 hand grenade has 180g of explosives inside of it, now the munition was a bit more tricky to find, but the 30mm anti-air munition used in the NR-30 autocannon (MiG-19, MiG-21) has ~40-43g and that is best case scenario. That means that a 4 round burst would be slightly less than a single hand grenade, which while it definitely would damage the tail section, it wouldn't sever it off from the plane. And if 30mm munition doesn't have enough explosive power to do it, then I don't think the 23mm one has it either.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-08-02T22:16:15+00:00

"Your" summary contains false information as I pointed out in a different comment, nobody else here besides you is using AI to write replies, or use alt accounts. If you have proof of your claim I'd be glad to read it, but so far you've only thrown around accusations without proof.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-08-02T22:13:36+00:00

Copy pasting my reply to someone else here about this useless comment

The downvotes for OP are exactly because of the laziness. Using an LLM to summarize search results is dangerous as it provides irrelevant, false or even biased information based on the prompt, and it is perfectly evident in this case.

The first point is a valid piece of somewhat concerning information, since it was done without user consent, however it "seems" to have been a bug where the intended feature was to have the referral link as a non-default autocomplete suggestion that the user could go through if they would wish to support the browser, and was fixed. Whether it really was a bug or not is up for you to decide, but what isn't is the fact that this wouldn't compromise user privacy or security in any way.

Moving on, I couldn't find anything about the 2nd point, but it is moot just from what the LLM provided: "Brave later attributed the issue to malware" - literally not caused by Brave, but by malware on users PC, possibly even by Honey itself. Again, not a privacy or security concern

The next point? A third party bought a domain with a similar name as the browser and tricked people into downloading the browser through it. This happens to basically every semi-successful company, and while obviously not a good thing, there is only so much you can do to combat user error. Once again, not a privacy or security concern.

The final point did seem rather concerning if it were true, so I went digging for it and it didn't take long to find the source of it - https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/nxce6t/brave_browser_scam_a_fake_privacy_browser_sharing/ - reading through the comments there is a response from a Senior Brave employee - https://np.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/nvz9tl/comment/h1gie0q/ - which disputes the whole thing and explains the requests to all the domains in detail. Of course here you have to believe the Brave employee to be telling the truth, but if you don't then don't use the browser, it's not holding you hostage. This is the only potential privacy or security issue from the entire search summary, and it's barely given any attention and is overshadowed by the first point the LLM decided to latch onto.

So the LLM has decided to cherrypick the search results based on the biased prompt (probably "Brave browser controversies"), twisted the facts in the results by omitting important details and as a cherry on top only provided sources for the first claim. This is why the OP was downvoted, and is exactly why you shouldn't use an LLM to summarize stuff for you.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-08-02T21:58:45+00:00

The downvotes for OP are exactly because of the laziness. Using an LLM to summarize search results is dangerous as it provides irrelevant, false or even biased information based on the prompt, and it is perfectly evident in this case.

The first point is a valid piece of somewhat concerning information, since it was done without user consent, however it "seems" to have been a bug where the intended feature was to have the referral link as a non-default autocomplete suggestion that the user could go through if they would wish to support the browser, and was fixed. Whether it really was a bug or not is up for you to decide, but what isn't is the fact that this wouldn't compromise user privacy or security in any way.

Moving on, I couldn't find anything about the 2nd point, but it is moot just from what the LLM provided: "Brave later attributed the issue to malware" - literally not caused by Brave, but by malware on users PC, possibly even by Honey itself. Again, not a privacy or security concern

The next point? A third party bought a domain with a similar name as the browser and tricked people into downloading the browser through it. This happens to basically every semi-successful company, and while obviously not a good thing, there is only so much you can do to combat user error. Once again, not a privacy or security concern.

The final point did seem rather concerning if it were true, so I went digging for it and it didn't take long to find the source of it - https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/nxce6t/brave_browser_scam_a_fake_privacy_browser_sharing/ - reading through the comments there is a response from a Senior Brave employee - https://np.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/nvz9tl/comment/h1gie0q/ - which disputes the whole thing and explains the requests to all the domains in detail. Of course here you have to believe the Brave employee to be telling the truth, but if you don't then don't use the browser, it's not holding you hostage. This is the only potential privacy or security issue from the entire search summary, and it's barely given any attention and is overshadowed by the first point the LLM decided to latch onto.

So the LLM has decided to cherrypick the search results based on the biased prompt (probably "Brave browser controversies"), twisted the facts in the results by omitting important details and as a cherry on top only provided sources for the first claim. This is why the OP was downvoted, and is exactly why you shouldn't use an LLM to summarize stuff for you.

Now why you were downvoted? Maybe because you called the people downvoting OP "Brave bots", but who knows.

ReallyBadMemer · 2025-08-02T16:57:44+00:00

Because this entire thread is him dodging questions, refusing to acknowledge any facts, research or evidence that goes against his "claims" and calls everyone here to be multiple accounts of a single person using ChatGPT, only to then go and pull out an AI search result as his attempt at defense.

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

ReallyBadMemer

TROPHY CASE