Well, those are examples of revolutions against entities which were definitely not dictatorships. The British parliament stopped fighting the Americans over the objection of the King.
I was trying to SUBTLY IMPLY they should be armed against the regime. Also, that they should do something different than protesting. While protesting, people become targets.
I suppose subtlety doesn't work with you.
A fighter against the regime who is alive is more valuable than the corpse of a protestor. That's simply logistics, you fake Cthulhu.
> Meaning, the people should be able to defend themselves against the violence directed to them.
Yes. But not just and not mainly from your government: you are way more likely to get killed by criminals and/or terrorists then by law enforcement officers.
To put things in perspectice in the US there are more than 20 000 homicides per year.
And for women rape and rape attempts are scary, here are the numbers for the UK:
You cannot really compare 36 000+ people getting killed by an islamist regime that rules the country by sharia law with the number of people killed by law enforcement officers in, say, France or the US. Where the number of people being killed by officials, yearly, can be counted on one hand's fingers.
In the same vein, you cannot really compared terror attacks like the 2024 one in Russia where 145 people where killed in a theater or the 130 people killed by terrorists at the Bataclan in France or the 70 killed in Nice (my sister was there with her two kids that day and she saw the terrorist and her son is still, to this day, traumatized) with the number of people getting killed by law enforcement officers in a country like France or the US (I'm using these two as an example for they are country where, each year, a few people are killed by law enforcement officers).
Unarmed people vs terrorists with kalashnikovs: slaughter.
A great many are highly concerned, for example, that there are now sleeping islamists terrorists cells in the EU. Even mainstream media began reporting the concerns. There are regularly arrests and terrorists plots foiled. And Christmas markets and celebrations have been cancelled this year in many european cities because the risk of islamist terror attacks were too high.
When a country disarms its people, it doesn't just make them vulnerable to the governement's wrongdoings: it makes them vulnerables to criminals and terrorists too. Which, so far in the western world, is definitely a much bigger threat.
Now that said there are more than 10 billion ammo sold, each year, in the US, to civilians. If there's one country where either the government or the terrorists would have a problem should they go "all in", it's the US.
>Yes. But not just and not mainly from your government: you are way more likely to get killed by criminals and/or terrorists then by law enforcement officers.
That's not true globally; in the 20th century governments in Russia, Germany, China and Cambodia collectively killed over a hundred million of their own people.
>it makes them vulnerables to criminals and terrorists too. Which, so far in the western world, is definitely a much bigger threat.
Germany is the western world. Many of six million Jews would probably still be around if they'd been well-armed.
It's a bit sad that a GUI library absolutely needs to be new and shining to be even considered nowadays, it looks like the whole programming world got infected by JS ecosystem anything-that-is-more-than-3-months-old-is-obsolete mindset.
As someone who has used it and preferred WX over QT for Windows based programs, the issue is not in the look and feel of the final product itself.
It's the heavy use of C style macros instead of C++ templates, mostly.
The WX C++ code looks like Microsoft Foundation Classes. I am fine with it, but for a long term project, this could discourage new people joining the project.
These two are so above everyone else in the mathematical world that most people would struggle for weeks or even months to understand something they did in a couple of minutes.
There's no "get down and dirty" shortcut with them =)
Then that experiment is even more interesting, and should be done.
My own prediction is that the LLMs would totally fail at connecting the dots, but a small group of very smart humans can.
Things don't happen all of a sudden, but they also don't happen everywhere. Most people in most parts of the world would never connect the dots. Scientific curiosity is something valuable and fragile, that we just take for granted.
One of the reasons they don’t happen everywhere is because there are just a few places at any given point in time where there are enough well connected and educated individuals who are in a position to even see all the dots let alone connect them.
This doesn’t discount the achievement of an LLM also manages to, but I think it’s important to recognise that having enough giants in sight is an important prerequisite to standing on their shoulders
Their level of “polish” extends to dangerous, unreliable levels of automation.
For anything enterprise related, I would avoid Google and their automated account bans without the possibility of contacting a human tech-support agent like the plague.
You pay for a SaaS solution to remove worries to your day-to-day, not to add more things to worry about.
Children should and must be allowed to fail. In fact, failure is the default outcome most of the time.
I wish I had learned in childhood that doing my best was enough. Not being the best, just doing my best.
But no, this is a lesson I learned from sim racing, as an adult, during the COVID-19 quarantine, as there was not much else to do.
What did I learn from sim racing:
— If I make a mistake, and I keep thinking about that mistake, I will just make more mistakes. Mental recovery, and not punishing myself, is a must. I must go back to mental clarity as fast as possible, to avoid making another mistake.
— Sometimes, doing my best is not enough. It can even be worthless. Other people make mistakes and that will ruin your race. In a long season, this can be offset by consistently good results. “It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life.” — Jan Luc Picard
— I should not respect this driver because he has a famous last name or so. But I must respect that he did 600 laps preparing for the race. And my respect should be that I also practice as much. Preparation is important, we can't just go to a new track and expect to win. The winner is usually the best combination of general experience and event preparation.
— Nothing feels better than a victory that's hard-earned, against a talented group. Easy victories just feel cheap in comparison.
Just because someone has different taste doesn't make it bad taste. Books have lower resolution still, and they evoke far greater imaginative leaps. For me, the magic lies in what is not shown; it helps aid the suspension of disbelief by requiring you imagination to do more work filling in the gaps.
I'm an avid video game player, and while FPS and sports-adjacent games demand high framerates, I'm perfectly happy turning my render rates down to 40Hz or 30Hz on many games simply to conserve power. I generally prefer my own brain's antialiasing, I guess.
In the broadest sense of the word, aliasing refers to a problem where an insufficient number of samples create a misrepresentation of an intended signal source. I was being a bit poetic, because in graphics programming, where the term "antialiasing" is most often encountered by lay audiences, antialiasing generally refers to X/Y sampling coordinate correction rather than representations across time. It's not usually considered a major issue in vision, because our brains naturally fill in the gaps pretty easily across time for motion (they already naturally do this for eg blinking, you don't see your eyelids when you blink). So usually antialiasing across time is only an issue in audio domains for the layperson, where a misrepresentation of a sample might be perceived as an entirely different pitch, since our ears need >40k samples per second (for accurate high pitches) vs the 24 samples per second that we are accustomed to getting in old fashioned film. When our eyes "miss" a frame or two, our brain is happy to fill in the gaps, ie "antialiasing."
Edit: to clarify, I'm suggesting that some people might prefer to let their brains "fill in the missing frames" rather than see the extra frames shown explicitly. For example, you might be more likely to notice visual tearing at 60Hz than you are to take note of visual tearing at 24Hz when you're already accustomed to filling in the missing pieces, or to a greater extreme, across two panels of a comic strip portraying motion.
> The art direction was chosen for the technology.
And it's time for the art direction of films to take advantage of modern technology just like we have games made for HD resolutions toady - including ones that are made to evoke the feel of older systems while smoothing off the rough edges.
> You don't need 48fps to make a good film. You don't need a big budget either.
And you don't need HD resolutions either, but they do make it look even better - and so do high frame rates when the production is up to it.
Anyone choosing 24 FPS with a digital workflow is absolutely doing it intentionally. Part of that may be historical reasons or matching expectations, but it's also a factor in some of the illusion that goes into movies.
Not true in all cases - for example Blu Ray doesn't support 48 FPS which is probably the reason why we never got high frame rate home video releases of The Hobbit and Avatar rather than the directors thinking that we should see those movies in 24 FPS when at home.
I agree in part. I'd like to see movies shot at higher framerates if and only if the filmmaker can actually pull off a good result, but I suspect it isn't always viable.
What you are is dishonest. Quote my entire sentence not cut it in half changing its entire meaning
> The choice wasn't intentional, it was forced by technology and in turn, methods were molded by technological limitation.
There was no choice unless you think "just make it look bad by ignoring tech limitations" is realistic choice of someone actually taking money for their job.
>> What next, gonna complain resolution is too high and you can see costume seams ?
>Try playing an SNES game on CRT versus with pixel upscaling.
>The art direction was chosen for the technology.
There was no choice involved. You had to do it because that was what tech required from you for it to look good.
The technology changed, so art direction changed with it. Why can't movie industry keep up while gaming industry had dozen of revolutions like this ?
> You don't need 48fps to make a good film. You don't need a big budget either.
But you can take it and make it better.
> If you want to take a piece of art and have it look garish, you do you.
"Don't have budget to double the framerate" is fair argument. Why you don't use that instead of assuming anything made in better tech will be "garish" ?
Your argument is essentially saying "I don't have enough skill to use new tech and still make it look great"
I was being civil, but you're taking this too far. I was wary of engaging with your first comment given the bombastic tone, but I thought you might appreciate my domain experience. I disagree with everything you're saying, but I am not going to engage with you further.
If movie makers need to up their set game to make it work then they should do that instead of trying to gaslight us into believing 24 FPS is better. TV also had to improve their sets and effects for HD without crying about it.
It is a well-known description for what each brand calls something different. As I wait in a physiotherapist office I am being subjected to a soap opera against my will. Many will have seen snippets of The Bold and the Beautiful without watching a single episode, but enough to know that it looks 'different'.
That choice was made long before Scorsese made The Godfather; and so has virtually every other movie made over the past century.
Real artists understand the limits of the medium they're working in and shape their creations to exist within it. So even if there was no artistic or technical merit in the choice to standardize on 24 FPS, the choice to standardize on 24 FPS shaped the media that came after it. Which means it's gained merit it didn't have when it was initially standardized upon.
Whether he invented 24hz or not, the film was shot with that in mind, is the point. Just like the lighting of black and white films was very different because of color limitations, or the mannerisms of silent films were different due to lack of dialogue or sound other than a musical track.
At the end of the day the viewer should get to see what they want to see. But in my case I usually want to see what the author had in mind, and I want my TV to respect that preference.
I disliked the effect (of an unfamiliar TV’s postprocessing) without calling it that and without ever having seen a soap opera. What’s your analysis, doc?
Watch cartoons if you don't want 'real'. Those made by Disney are said to be 'magic'.
Sorry for being snarky. It's just that I have large difficulties enjoying 24 fps pan shots and action scenes. It's like watching a slide show to me. I'm rather annoyed that the tech hasn't made any progress in this regard, because viewers and makers want to cling on to the magic/dream-like experiences they had in their formative years.
Real high framerate is one thing, but the TV setting is faking it with interpolation. There's not really a good reason to do this, it's trickery to deceive you. Recording a video at 60fps is fine, but that's just not what TV and movies do in reality. No one is telling you to watch something at half the intended framerate, just the actual framerate.
I would vastly prefer original material at high frame rates instead of interpolation.
But I remember the backslash against “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” because it was filmed at 48 Hz, and that makes me think that people dislike high frame rate content no matter the source, so my comment also covers these cases.
Also, because of that public response, we don't have more content actually filmed at high frame rates =)
I wanted to like The Hobbit in 48, but it really didn't work for me. It made everything look fake, from the effects to the acting. I lost suspension of disbelief. If we want high frame rate to be a thing, then filmmakers need to figure out a way to direct that looks plausible at a more realistic speed, and that probably means less theatrics.
I don't have strong feelings on 48fps video as I haven't been exposed to it much, if at all (I kind of just ignore LotR and Star Wars and figure I missed the boat on them at this point), but I will say I have watched and recorded 60fps YouTube videos and I am not bothered by them at all. Maybe something in between 24 and 60 would feel a bit "off" to me, but I'd at least be in favor of stuff going to 60, I think.
It's called the soap opera effect because soap operas were shot on video tape, instead of film, to save money. It wasn't just soap operas, either. Generally, people focus on frame rate, but there are other factors, too, like how video sensors capture light across the spectrum differently than film.
I find the rejection of higher frame rates for movies and TV shows to be baffling when people accepted color and sound being introduced which are much bigger changes.
I haven't thought about or noticed in nearly two decades
My eyes 100% adjusted, I like higher frame and refresh rates now
I cant believe that industry just repeated a line about how magical 24fps feels for ages and nobody questioned it, until they magically had enough storage and equipment resources to abandon it. what a coincidence
It's all gaming history and a sadly-overlooked part of "Stop Killing Games".
The worst part is the licenses that do exist are non-transferrable, so by the end of this century there will be zero licenses left for these games. They'll just be expunged until they become public domain perhaps in the middle of the next century - if any copies survive.
And what's sad about that is we know for a fact games can survive and be enjoyed for decades, because we have seen this occur for the entire lineage of game-playing machines.
That presumes you can find someone to agree to those terms (which you won't), and if they do, that it isn't a prohibitively expensive fee (which it would be).
The license should be to use the likeness for a given purpose. Either make it perpetual or per copy, not per time. Product breaking licenses should not be allowed in most situations.
I just wonder why movies get away with licenses for both music and depicting cars etc. for eternity. Seems like they just added weird unnecessary rules for video games. I also imagine a situation where Stephen King has to renew with Plymouth every few years. Seems ridiculous for any other art form why is it so easily accepted for this one?
There are only 1,038 delisted games out of 100,000+ games on Steam, so there are willing licensors. Some may offer perpetual licenses, but want a royalty. It might be easier to delist a game than to manage the ongoing paperwork.
Most games don't have that sort of licensed content to start with, so comparing to the total population of games isn't meaningful.
Offering a perpetual license would limit the licensor's options (e.g. they could never offer someone else an exclusive license, nor could they adjust the rates if the brand becomes more popular, nor could they terminate if the developer/publisher becomes toxic), so I guess while it's theoretically possible I just don't see why they'd want to offer such a license.
It is meaningful if the claim that perpetual licenses don't exist. They do. The terminology is often mocked, but comes in handy in case like this: "in perpetuity, throughout the universe".
I despise that licensing is a thing in video games. They're an art form and you should be able to depict whatever you want. I don't care if Porsche, John Deere or Sig Sauer get their feelings hurt because someone made art.
If you call something a Porsche, John Deere, or a Sig Sauer and inaccurately represent it you're doing brand damage especially in the modern era where it could become a toxic meme on TikTok or whatever.
That's no good and should be prevented.
Developers could pony up for perpetual licenses if they cared but they don't.
This is a thing dreamed up by IP lawyers to justify their own employment. Brands do far more damage to themselves by suing small companies than they could ever take from being represented in a work of art, even negatively.
It was always unpopular to be seen as a manipulator, the control freak who "manages" their image with punitive measures. But it has probably never been as unpopular as it is right now. John Deere would be more popular from tossing their brand management lawyers from the fifth floor than they would from listening to them.
The ONLY time a big brand has anything to complain about, is when they are said to have endorsed something they didn't.
I was under the impression that most gameplay scenarios are positive exposure for real-world brands. The kid who spends 500 hours of his childhood driving around specific cars in games is developing brand preferences before he ever steps foot in a dealership.
A smart brand would be eager to undercut their competitors for licensing-- even to the point of giving them away free, assuming the negotiate positive brand exposure.
I'm sure perp licences are more expensive, also nobody should be forbidden from using brands for artistic purposes. If a company licences the color "red" for their branding and it henceforth requires licencing for use they can shove that idea up their rear
Depends on what you mean by "still work". If you bought them, you can download and play them. If you mean "Do they work on modern OS", it depends entirely on the game. You also have games that are still being sold but don't properly work on modern OSes without community patches (one example is Max Payne 1).
At least the GTA games and metro 2033 are still available for purchase on steam, just the remastered versions. When they released those, the older versions were delisted
At least for the PC versions of Vice City and San Andreas, the originals are missing the music too. A bunch of licenses expired 10 years after release and the Steam releases got updated accordingly.
Even the defunct Upstart is better than what's in Devuan.
reply