Add Engadget icon

[RPicster]

Issue: closes #5309

Checklist

• I updated the JSON data in _data/simple-icons.json
• I optimized the icon with SVGO or SVGOMG
• The SVG viewbox is 0 0 24 24

Description

I manually extracted the e from the engadget svg logo on the website to create the fav icon / small icon described in their logo guide.
I chose #000 as the default color, #fff would have been an alternative, but black fits the general approach of simple icons better.

I also included the margin/whitespace around the e as it is requested by the logo guideline:
https://o.aolcdn.com/engadget/brand-kit/eng-logo-guidelines.pdf

[RPicster]

Hm, I see the linter fails because of the size. In the file the viewport size is correct. There is whitespace however - as this is required by the logo guidelines.

Shall I remove the whitespace?

[LitoMore]

@RPicster See https://github.com/simple-icons/simple-icons/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md.

[LitoMore]

@RPicster I see some differences. Are you using the resource below as a reference?

<svg class="Fill(engadgetSteelGray) Stk(engadgetSteelGray) Fill(#fff)--md Stk(#fff)--md W(152px) W(120px)--xs Cur(p)" width="33" style="stroke-width:0;vertical-align:bottom" height="33" viewBox="0 0 152 33" data-icon="logo-engadget"><path d="M0 24.1C0 25.7 1.3 27 3 27h12v-3H3v-3h11.8c1.6 0 3.2-1.3 3.2-2.9v.1-5.9c0-1.6-1.5-3.2-3.2-3.2H3c-1.6 0-3 1.6-3 3.2v11.8zM15 18H3v-6h12v6zm40.1-9H43.2c-1.6 0-3.2 1.6-3.2 3.2v11.9-.1c0 1.6 1.6 3 3.2 3H55v3H43v3h12.1c1.6 0 2.9-1.4 2.9-3V12.2c0-1.6-1.3-3.2-2.9-3.2zM55 24H43V12h12v12zM32 9h-8.9c-1.6 0-3.1 1.6-3.1 3.2V27h3V12h9c1.6 0 3 1.5 3 3.2V27h3V15.2c0-3.3-2.7-6.2-6-6.2zm43 15H63v-8.9c0-1.6 1.6-3.2 3.3-3.2H75v15h3V12.2c0-1.6-1.2-3.2-2.8-3.2h-8.9C63 9 60 11.9 60 15.2v8.9c0 1.6 1.7 2.9 3.3 2.9h5.2c2.7 0 5.5-1.1 6.5-3v3m68-27h-3v27h3V12h9V9h-9zm-42 24.1c0 1.6.9 2.9 2.5 2.9H115v3h-11v3h11.4c1.6 0 2.6-1.4 2.6-3.1v.1-17.8c0-1.6-1-3.2-2.6-3.2h-11.9c-1.6 0-2.5 1.6-2.5 3.2v11.9zm14-.1h-11V12h11v12zM95 9H83.4c-1.6 0-3.4 1.6-3.4 3.2v11.9-.1c0 1.6 1.8 3 3.4 3H98V0h-3v9zm0 15H83V12h12v12zm25 .1c0 1.6 1.7 2.9 3.3 2.9H135v-3h-12v-3h12.2c1.6 0 2.8-1.3 2.8-2.9v.1-5.9c0-1.6-1.2-3.2-2.8-3.2h-11.9c-1.6 0-3.3 1.6-3.3 3.2v11.8zm15-6.1h-12v-6h12v6z"></path></svg>

[RPicster]

Hm, yes there is a significant difference.
I repeated the whole process with the source you linked (which is the svg from the sites top).
I also rebased to develop.

[LitoMore]

@RPicster I still see some differences. But I think it's acceptable due to the source resource is smaller than our viewbox.