I don't think it's a lie, it's objectively true that shit SD cards would have that effect on performance if used as adopted storage. But I do agree with you that it was a convenient excuse, as I wrote at the end of my original comment.

It's not the users saying it, it's the OEMs. Back when this was a new discussion, I at least remember Google saying this as justification for why it stopped including them in their devices after the nexus 4

Not that I think it was a good reason for ditching them whatsoever, but one of the main reasons given has a tiny bit of merit:

Allegedly, a lot of users often cheaped out on SD cards and then used them as adopted system storage where they moved all their apps to. This had the effect of completely tanking phone performance and then they would often get corrupted after a bit of use taking user data with them. This then generated a load of negative reputation about the devices being slow and unreliable, when the problem was the choice of SD card, and generated a load of wasted money in supporting these users when that happened (think unnecessary RMAs, etc).

Personally I think they should just have restricted it to A1+ SD cards, and sucked up the people complaining about their bargain bin Scrandrisk SD not working. But I guess they saw an opportunity to have their cake and eat it by just removing it and charging a premium for larger storage skus.

She took both arm rests and is acting entitled about it

Fuck me, does he want to get pulled up in front of the Hague too?

This is the main category for me, if it's a ported PC game I'll play it on PC (quake 2, command & conquer, etc)

The comfortable one is unfortunately an ultimate feature that we don't get in our plan

So the party that's ostensibly supposed to be pro business, sides with shitty anti-business conmen?

It's hard to see how their guiding ideology isn't just "be shitty and make things worse" now

Flat design may be less distracting to you but that also means it's less clear, because there are fewer obvious demarcation.

I despise flat design, it's downright awful design, and done for looks rather than functionality.

to you

Flat design dominates for a reason—the less visually busy something is, the easier it is for users to wrap their heads around it. This gets proven again and again in user studies, the more busy and dense you make things, the more users miss stuff and get lost.

People's opinions on the ribbon specifically are obviously all subjective, but I would say the less distracting design would be the one done less for looks, rather it's a pretty utilitarian design if you pick it apart. This is an interface for productivity tools, and as such the interface should get out of your way until you need it—the ribbon just does that better IMO.

Microsoft also did this to obfuscate features, which is pretty apparent when you consider new users used to "discover" features via the menu system. I supported Office for MS in the early days, and this was a huge thing at the time. It was discussed heavily when training on new versions.

Why on earth would Microsoft want to obfuscate features? There's no way that motivation would ever make sense.

IIRC one of the main reasons Microsoft introduced the ribbon was that grouping functionality contextually helped users discover features, because people kept requesting features that already existed, but they just couldn't find. I remember there being a blog on the Microsoft developer site about the making of it that went into this.

Kinda telling on himself given the "with actual malice" part of it

Weirdly as someone who has used both styles heavily, I'd say the ribbon is more practical than the old toolbars. There's more contextual grouping and more functional given the tabs and search, plus the modern flat design is less distracting, which is what I'd want from a productivity application. Also for me two rows of toolbars & a menu is about the same height as the ribbon anyway, and you can collapse the ribbon if you want to use the space

So

300×1024×1024= 314,572,800kb

Assuming something like 200 bytes per log line

x5 = 1,572,864,000 logs

Assuming this is your standard console port with a 60fps frame rate lock:

÷60fps ÷ 60 seconds ÷ 60 minutes ÷ 24h = 303.407... days

You would need to play for nearly a year solid to generate that many logs at a rate of one per frame.

Given that's probably not what's happened, this is a particularly impressive rate of erroring