It somehow blocks scaling and thinks me directly into a wall of links and ads; if I scroll over to the content on the right, it’s too wide for my screen.

That archive link is so much worse than the actual article

https://www.eurogamer.net/star-wars-eclipse-studio-quantic-dream-layoffs

Wouldn’t it be “koo-yay?”

Ah, so that’s why I have them tagged as “fascist simp.”

Nobody would be having any fun.

THIS IS JUST A COMMENT IN CAPITAL LETTERS

No, his name is Dow. DOW doesn’t stand for anything.

Sure, this time I managed to figure it out. Next time they screw up an acronym, somebody else might not.

FYI, DOW doesn’t stand for anything. “Dow” is commonly used to refer to the “Dow Jones Industrial Average.”

Well, maybe six months ago. Or pretty much any time before March.

Well, at least the trash took itself out.

I’m referring to everyone in this thread and not the singular you. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

And no, assuming that traffic casualties are consistently measured in seventeen-year intervals is not reasonable.

My question implies that there is no guess that seems reasonable. Successive 17-year periods is a highly unusual method for measurement, so that doesn’t really make sense. Or am I simply missing something otherwise more obvious? Why not share that information instead of being condescending?

And if “you all” know that it’s unclear, why not simply agree that it’s unclear in the first place?

I’m asking what’s being compared. It’s unclear and not specified. I don’t want to make a poor assumption. That is all. Why are you offended by that? What are you imagining I’m asking?

You don’t think it’s valid to criticize a misleading headline?

Yes, it does. X + (75% × X) = (100% × X) + (75% × X) = (100% + 75%) × X = 175% × X

If you started with $100, and ended up with 75% more, how much money would you have ended up with?

No, the problem is that I can actually read.

“Since 2009” would refer to the span of seventeen years since 2009.

75% more implies an increase of 75% (meaning a total of 175%, equivalent to 1.75×, or just shy of 2×) over some other quantity.

What is that other quantity? Surely not the deaths just in the year 2009. Is it the seventeen years prior to 2009? Something else? The article never appears to actually specify.

So in the course of seventeen years (since 2009), fewer than twice the number of people have been killed than in 2009 alone? That’s either a massive improvement, or something terrible was happening in 2009.

Fuckers at 1X keep trying to recruit me to work on their horseshit. NEO is actually just remote-controlled: https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/i-tried-the-robot-thats-coming-to-live-with-you-its-still-part-human-68515d44

75% more than what?