Posts by Rachel Reed2

Hardly believable... 😕 🤣

George Lopez6 said:What a total disaster. It actually managed to be worse than the last Die Hard movie, which—if you ask me—wasn't even that bad, despite lacking this nauseatingly forced patriotism. That scene where they take down the American flag and let it fall in slow motion was just pathetic. 🤣 Gerard Butler is incredibly irritating here. White House Down needs to be way better than this garbage.

I was impressed when the woman crawls across the floor, beaten down, and starts reciting "I pledge allegiance to the Flag..." just to spite the terrorists.🤦
😂 😂 😂

This movie is complete garbage. Even as a mindless action flick, it fails to deliver. A foolish, poorly made mess. 🤷

John Carter had plenty of reasons to flop (in my opinion). 🤷
I honestly have no idea where they blew that $250 million 🤦

Decent movie. I was expecting total trash, but it turned out to be alright.
I guess that's what happens when you have zero expectations. 😁

William Alvarez35 said:I don't get owners like that. They buy an expensive bike but settle for cheap, useless security. Then they act surprised when it's gone.

People might not even realize how ineffective that kind of gear actually is. 🤷

Regardless, I'm glad my workplace has a secure garage. No one outside the company can get in, and it's under video surveillance.

Jeffrey Garcia6 said:but they put those fancy bike racks right by the entrance, and people actually use them—I'll check if there's surveillance coverage.
And buy a U-lock regardless.

A thief isn't going to waste time on a U-lock or a heavy chain if there are bikes just sitting there with cheap cables. It's not like a Nakamura is worth the effort.
Saw a Cannondale Bad Boy tied up with a cable near Downtown the other day. $33 🙄

Jeffrey Garcia6 said:I’m thinking about investing... I looked at some other bikes parked outside the office, and most of them are basically "secured" with just a cheap cable lock.

Just get this U-lock and you're set. No thief is going to waste their time messing with you when there are plenty of bikes nearby secured by nothing but flimsy cables. 😁
(Unless you happen to own a $3.25Ford
)
By the way, check out this thread. There are some interesting videos regarding bike security. It mostly boils down to the fact that it takes a thief about five seconds to snip a cable lock.

Jeffrey Garcia6 said:Right outside my office building, there are bike racks where I see about twenty bikes every single day. It's right by the main entrance, so maybe some security cameras cover the area.
I've checked on mine from my window a few times today. 😁

What kind of lock are you using? 🍿

Nathan Castillo8 said:Why isn't anyone else fantasizing about biking to work?
:=)

I am currently finishing my 1865 miles at the end of February.
Hopefully things pick up soon, and I can start commuting by bike every single day.

I ride a few times a week, and I hope to increase that frequency now.
6.2 milesI take the direct route so I don't arrive sweaty, but when I head home, I take the long way. For instance, riding past Lake Michigan—no need for any sights of people in skimpy workout gear to boost my mood after a shift. 😁

But that smoothie stand closed down. 😢

Kimberly White63 said:mistyhound94: None of the quotes you provided are grounds for a ban on their own. I agree the overall impression is negative, but let the user deal with that warning through the Democratic Party.

Daniel Ward87 said:I spoke with the moderators at the alternativa, so the issue will be resolved.

I am requesting confirmation from the forum moderators regarding whether the statements made in the initial post are considered bannable offenses or not.
I have frequently wanted to call someone a fool, a loser, or an idiot, but I restrained myself, fearing such language would lead to sanctions. 🤷

I don't mind being called an idiot. But if I'm going to be insulted, I expect the right to call someone else one in return. 😁

So—am I allowed to call an idiot an idiot without getting banned for it?

Does what Daniel Ward87 wrote mean that kind of language isn't allowed? He wasn't exactly descriptive; he just stated the problem would be resolved. How, though? 🤷

mistystag99 said:They should just install a plugin that auto-scales everything down to 800x600 until clicked.

I doubt a plugin like that even exists for this version of vBulletin, but let someone more knowledgeable weigh in.

Not sure that's a good idea either.
I've seen forums using similar tools where users just dump massive 2500x2000 pixel images—files hitting 1MB each—and suddenly pages are crawling even on decent broadband.

Now that we have settled the avatar situation, let us examine whether this forum could move away from the current 640-pixel limit on images within posts—at least according to the rules, though I notice exceptions are occasionally made.

Allowing 1024x1024 might cause some issues, but I believe an 800x600 limit (be it 600x800 or 800x800) would be harmless. 😁

The moderators finally have 75x75 avatars. This is what my struggle has earned me.😬

Christian Taylor3 said:

They tend to come in waves, I guess...

🙂

Don't go changing a single thing, because at this rate, we probably won't even have avatars left soon. 😁 Besides, the server has been running flawlessly for months now. 😢

Increasing pixel counts doesn't automatically mean an avatar's file size will balloon, provided we maintain that 9.8 KB limit. If we stick to the current constraints, the server won't have anything to worry about. 👍

Maria Barnes said:Testing.

The problem with bigger avatars is simple: if most people pick ugly ones, the whole Reddit site just gets uglier.

Ha, you like my new avatar?😁 You want something like this? 75x75.

Sure, but only if you promise not to upload hideous stuff. And you better pressure anyone with an ugly avatar to fix it.😁

Let the women state their own positions. 🙂

😁

Maria Barnes said:No, I'm not. An avatar is an aesthetic choice. It’s a tiny bit of art. A way to show personality. Aside from the logo and the banner, it's the only graphic element on this entire Reddit.

Get ready for an official contest for the best avatar on the site.

Then I hope they actually follow through on increasing avatar sizes for everyone. Looking at yours, even 75x75 would probably suffice.
If you actually want to win this contest, change that avatar immediately. 😁

mellowraven22 said:Honestly, I don't really care if we go with avatars at 75x75 or 100x100. Just gotta see where everyone else stands on it first.

Fine. I'll hold onto the figures until we reach a decision. 👍

Taylor Gonzalez79 said:50X50=2500
75X75=5625

It was under 3125 pixels before.

Well, you've officially buried him... 🤣

That 3125 figure is a negligible percentage compared to a modest 1280x1024 screen resolution of 1,310,720 pixels.
3125 is just 0.23%.
What a massive difference. If we include five posts per screen, we hit a staggering 1.15%.😲

Your math is annoying.😁

🙂

Start a separate thread for signatures. 🙂 🤣

As a former moderator here in the States, I’m voting to have you reinstated. 👍

Provided, of course, that you give a formal pledge to cease all spamming and trolling, and commit to behaving with basic decency. 😁

Regarding those complaining about visual clutter: an avatar 100 x100 isn't even that large. In fact, 75x75 is relatively small by today's monitor resolutions.

On some American forums cluttered with avatars, you see 200x200 sizes, but the real issue is massive signatures filled with huge images.

Take this as an example.
From left to right: 50x50 (current), 60x60, 75x75, and 100x100.



File sizes on the drive: 3KB, 3KB, 4KB, and 6KB. Even at 100x100, it doesn't exceed the current 9.8KB limit.

If 100x100 is too much for some—which it likely is—I believe a 75x75 size wouldn't hurt this forum. It won't take up significantly more space than the current 50x50, and as long as the 9.8KB limit remains, there's no difference for the server.

My official proposal is 75x75.

Will an admin ever actually show up here to provide an official forum stance? 🤷