I think software can create a good version of a video taken from a middle-tier camera. My 8-year-old DSLR, Nikon D750, can take 4k video at 60fps. Its sensor has more dynamic range than even high-end screens can produce. When I take a picture of my TV I can see individual pixels. That camera can capture every bit of info my screen is putting out. I bet from a 4k/60fps video from my camera you can process it to produce something closer to a 1080p/30fps BlueRay rip.
This was not the case with handy-cam theater rips. Those things were at best 480p and could never capture the picture projected on a screen even in the best conditions.
The final mastering/mixing has an avg db level they target. The more compressed mixes tend to have much louder avg db. Some of these modern "loud" mixes target -3db whereas the previous ones could be -10db or something. Played at an identical volume, the more compressed track will sound louder due to this target. Loudness war is an apt name. Just look at the sample waveforms on the wikipedia page:
Interesting that you read it as "end of life-dates". I read it as "end-of-life dates" and thinking it was about very old people or terminally ill people dating each other and supporting themselves up through the end.
Yeah I thought someone was capitalizing on the trope that old folks homes are basically orgy shacks and making a Tinder competitor for the space. You get a lot of people together dormitory style that have lost their life partner already, can't get pregnant, in a lot cases take a 'well it won't last that much longer anyway' approach to STIs, and have modern access to boner pills, and you have a recipe for a lot of casual hookups.
I loved FF7. They definitely make games like that today! It's just that we've since grown and don't have as much time to sink into a game and you're more influential when younger. I played Breath of the Wild 2 years ago and I'd 100% put that game up against any of the wonderful RPG/Action games I played as a child (going as far back as Ys Book I & II on a Turbo Duo and Fate of Atlantis on PC).
The chicken/egg question always irks me. Eggs came first. Eggs have existed far longer than chickens (eg dinosaur eggs). Whatever the first thing we could possibly call a chicken came from an egg.
You're right but for the people who are confused, it's because of the semantics of the question. If you specify the question a little more and ask "What came first? The chicken or the chicken egg" then the question is how do you define a chicken egg. Is it the egg that comes from a chicken or the egg that a chicken hatches from.
In the first case, the chicken came first and in the second case, the egg came first. I think it's obvious the the second case makes more sense but some people might argue.
The deeper question is not really about which came before in any random pair of "chicken and its chicken egg" or "chicken egg and its chicken".
It's about how chickens and chicken eggs emerge (first means "very very first"), and it's supposed to point to this paradox: If you need both chickens to have chicken eggs, and chicken eggs to produce a chicken, how did either came about?
E.g. did something non-chicken-yet that could lay eggs suddenly laid a chicken egg? Or did a non-chicken egg suddenly produce a chicken? and so on...
It's not even that simple. Evolution occurs gradually, so gradually in fact that there is no "first" chicken. Any given chicken/ancestor you pick will be so genetically close to its parents/children, that they're the same species by any definition.
Another way of putting the paradox is "Which chicken arrived first, the chicken or its parent"?
Chicken. If we establish some trait of a chicken we could be able to trace the first bird wich had the specific gene combination and it's parents had not. Still a well defined non paradox.
>Eggs have existed far longer than chickens (eg dinosaur eggs)
Which is neither here, nor there, and has little to do with the question, which is based on the paradox that you need a chicken egg to produce a chicken, and a chicken to produce a chicken egg.
It's not about whether some other random eggs existed before, but about when the cycle of chicken and chicken egg came to be, and how the vicious circle was resolved.
Your parent just explained, that there have been animals hatching from eggs before there were chicken. At some point some of those egg-hatching animals had mutated enough to be now called the first chicken. He thereby answered the chickend-egg-question through evolution.
Edit: Even if you specify, that it has to be a "chicken-egg" you just have to decide, whether an animal producing a chicken-egg is automatically a chicken. I would argue no, because you could then prove by induction that everything before has been a chicken.
>Your parent just explained, that there have been animals hatching from eggs before there were chicken
And I just explained that that alone is neither here, nor there, as the paradox is about the chicken egg, specifically, not whether eggs existed in general.
>At some point some of those egg-hatching animals had mutated enough to be now called the first chicken
Yes, but that's a different answer, which wasn't available when the chicken/egg question was posited - and it still points to a random (evolutionary) and fuzzy (when? how?) process.
There is a process called evolution going on. It's gradual and at some point there was a first bird which had the right gene combination for us to call it a chicken. It's parents did not have this specific traits and hence it's the egg which came first. Not some random "eggs".
We should come up with a better alternative paradoxes ...
>There is a process called evolution going on. It's gradual and at some point there was a first bird which had the right gene combination for us to call it a chicken.
Yes, but those initially positing the ancient chicken/egg paradox haven't discovered the theory of evolution yet, and for those later that still use it, the boundaries (when it "had the right gene combination for us to call it a chicken") are fuzzy. Those are the things the paradox aimed/aims to showcase.
I don't like this take at all. Copying is always easier than creating no? A lot of times the things that make or break or game are fine tuning the mechanics in order to balance difficulty/reward etc. Once this is done it's trivial to copy.
Games are more like music than food IMO. It's trivial to copy a song once you hear it. That doesn't somehow mean it's not a worthy song.
Agreed. It’sa lot of work and it’s easy to copy, so if finely-tuned game mechanics is your only hook for your game, it’ll be hard to compete in the genre since it’s so easily copied. If you’re interested in commercial success for your game, you need value that can’t be so easily copied. Sometimes it’s as basic as having a good community around the game.
I'm in the Northeast (Fairfield County, CT) and see red light blowing on an almost daily basis. Even during rush hour after 2020. I mean people even anticipate it. At least twice a month I'll see a clear intersection and a light that has been green for 2-3 seconds and cars are still waiting because some idiot is just barreling along in broad daylight with no intention of stopping coming the opposite way.
Even simple type systems like in Java can help with correctness. For example if you have a list of "Person" but the code itself assumes it's a unique list of people you can convert that list to a Map<PersonId, Person>. Further if the map is assumed to never accept null values for either key or value you can capture that in some kind of "People" class that enforces invariant assumptions.
You're right that is does not prevent actual logic bugs but in practice, a lot of bugs are sometimes caused simply by bad inputs. With types you can make it so that logic never gets bad input eg (sqrt(NonNegativeDouble) instead of sqrt(double)) can potentially eliminate some error handling code.
Why would a company choose to do anything that didn't directly make money or cut cost? Companies often have to be compelled to do things where the ROI is measured in decades no?
This was not the case with handy-cam theater rips. Those things were at best 480p and could never capture the picture projected on a screen even in the best conditions.