if someone is so weak-minded that they base their self-worth on what a bunch of whores on Instagram say is important
I see you didn't read TFA, and don't have any grasp of basic psychology.
Have you ever noticed how people can do things they normally would not do sometimes, particularly if they are part of a crowd or movement? That's because people's behaviour is governed by certain social norms and what they personally consider to be reasonable, and when they notice that other people are acting beyond those bounds it gives them a kind of permission to do it as well.
People suffering from mental illness are particularly vulnerable to this. Put extremely simply they are already feeling pretty bad about themselves, and then they find a community on the internet that seems to understand them and validates their behaviour and their feelings. You know, kinda like how nerds often feel isolated at school but then find that there are communities of like-minded individuals in clubs and on forums and it makes them feel better about being a nerd.
Calling people suffering from mental illness "whores" and suggesting that companies like Instagram should just let them self harm until they somehow reason their way back to health is fucked up. If you saw someone get seriously injured in an accident would you just say "let that be a lesson to them (assuming they don't bleed to death)"? And many of them are children, and one of the things you should know about kids is that they are still developing mentally and don't have all the tools that adults do to deal with the stuff being thrown at them.
Emotionally impacted girls (and possibly some guys)
It's just as bad for guys. Endless bombardment with unattainable images of perfect male bodies and toxic ideas about what masculinity is and what it means to be a man. It's easy to laugh at the tactical matte black male grooming tool, but that's just the tip of the iceberg and it makes a lot of men feel inadequate and like they are failing somehow.
I had a look and it's literally impossible to report problematic hashtags on Instagram. Apparently unless you are major media organization giving them bad press then they don't care.
Jesus fucking Christ DNS-and-BIND, not everything is about SJWs. In fact almost nothing is.
This is about advertisers. Advertisers are not SJWs, they are morally bankrupt shit peddlers who only care about the bottom line. And the bottom line is best served by being as inoffensive as possible to as many people as possible.
As much as the edgy kids love edgy YouTubers, they don't have any money and it's their more conservative parents who the advertisers need to avoid offending.
Most of the stuff they left out isn't really cool, it's just edgy bullshit for edgy teens.
Most of the popular stuff on YouTube is that kind of rubbish, or stuff for very young kids, or music videos, or meta-outrage. Would be nice if they included some really cool and interesting stuff, like some of the more niche channels. Show us some wood/metalworking stuff instead of 50 different Fortnight clips.
What we mean is that CRTs were not like LCDs with a fixed number of physical pixels. The holes in the grill and the dots on the screen are not pixels like on an LCD, pixels in a video frame.
The video is using the common definition of the term and does in fact explain the actual resolution that you mention.
The agreement requires countries to submit data on their compliance to the UN. It states how such data is to be collected. They rules are designed to prevent cheating and of course countries will monitor each other, e.g. any country with climate science satellites or nearby ground stations can tell if there is cheating going on.
Every country must set targets regularly and they must always be lower than the previous ones.
Enforcement is via the usual UN mechanisms. So for example when the UN enacts sanctions they are widely respected and cause the subject of the sanctions great problems and economic loss. In this case it would probably not be sanctions but would be justification for tariffs or international lawsuits or complaints through the WTO.
In theory a country could just decide to not go along with the agreement. Well, the US already pulled out of Paris. But in practice there will be consequences, and as we have seen in the past countries do tend to make a genuine effort to comply and meet their goals (including China which exceeded its last very aggressive target, and even the US which is being driven by states despite the federal government's position).
Put it another way, if you think people and nations only behave well because they are forced to by law and the threat of legal sanction or military force then you must not have looked at recent history.
The agreement is legally binding. It sets out how countries will meet their climate goals, and how poorer countries will get financial assistance to do it. For example it sets up rules on carbon trading between richer and poorer nations. It also sets out the legal consequence for climate change and how they will be enforced, and the way that compliance will be measured.
Linux has benefitted immensely from commercial contributions. In fact the majority of work is now done by people being paid to do it. I don't know about JDK but it seems similar.
Seems that for the sake of retaining a few swear words out of the source that could be a big loss.
As to who decides, I guess it's the same SJWs who decided you masturbate in public, i.e. fascists.
Does Chinese even have swear words? Japanese doesn't, not really. Even on kids shows they say things like "kuso" (shit) because it's seen as impolite but the concept of "words that simply should not be uttered even though they mean the same as other words that are impolite but not swear words" doesn't exist.
I always thought the "increase this counter every time you try to improve this and fail" comment was more effective for keeping people away from tricky code. I normally start at 7.
It also cost twice as much. The BBC Archimedes 305 was £800 on release in 1987, the 1MB model was an extra £75. And that's without a monitor or any software. The A500 was half the price, game bundled with games and software, and could work on a standard TV.
That's one of the reasons why the Archimedes never sold well outside of academia. It was a great machine, not not really attractive to consumers.
The Amiga was expandable too. The original A1000 had expansion slots, and the A500 had an expansion port on the side that was similar to an ISA slot and one on the bottom for RAM or CPU upgrades.
But that was rather missing the point. For 500 bucks you could get a power computer that didn't need upgrading or expanding, and which didn't have the resulting compatibility issues. You could buy Amiga software and expect it to work properly on your system, you didn't need to really understand computers or hardware to get what you needed, and the base price included everything.
By the way, those original Soundblaster and Adlib cards were shit compared to the standard Amiga sound. By the time PC graphics caught up it was well into the fast 368/VGA era.
2 years was a long time back then, and you can clearly see the influence of the Amiga in the Archimedes design, in both the hardware and the OS. Amiga OS proved that full preemptive multitasking and multimedia was possible on low cost home computers, at a time when everyone else (Microsoft, Apple, DRI, IBM and more) were failing to deliver.
Plus the Archimedes cost twice as much as an A500 at the time of launch.
As for "best computer ever made", I'd argue that it is for certain values of "best". No other machine was as fun to code for IMHO, or as influential. After the video game crash it was also were a lot of 16 bit developers got started and many of them are still around (e.g. DMA/Rockstar and DICE).
The Amiga hardware was incredible at the time, even though it had some severe limitations. In many ways that's what made it such a fun computer to code for, you could do so much hacking but also it needed so much care and guile to get the best out of.
For example, the standard machines only came with RAM that was shared between the CPU and chipset. That was how most machines were back then, and it created bottlenecks. To produce those high resolution, colourful graphics the chipset needed to use a lot of the available RAM bandwidth just to produce the video output. It was possible to add extra RAM that only the CPU could access and make the whole system much faster because the CPU and chipset could then operate in parallel, but for some reason Commodore never upgraded the base machines (the A500, 500+, 600 and 1200) to work that way.
Even so, it was possible to get some incredible results from the hardware. Shadow of the Beast is often cited as an example, but there were many such as Lionheart and even 3D games like No Second Prize. Let's look at Beast for a moment. That famous level 1 with all the parallax scrolling.
Firstly the Amiga supports some hardware parallax in the form of "dual playfield" mode, but the front and back fields are limited to 7 colours each. Extra layers of parallax were added by using sprites, of which the classic Amigas only had 8 and they were limited to 32 pixels wide and 4 colours (or 16 colours if you combined two, but then you only had 4 to play with). And of course, enabling sprites used up even more of the available memory bandwidth, as did dual playfield mode.
In fact memory bandwidth was often the limit on the Amiga. Once you went over 16 colours or enabled 7/7 colour dual playfield mode the CPU started to slow down because it was starved of memory access cycles more than usual. Add in sprites and sound and there wasn't much left for the CPU, let along the blitter (a fairly primitive kind of 2D GPU that was basically good for copying images).
Remember the Bridgeboard series? Basically an x86 CPU computer on a card that allowed you to run DOS and even Windows 3.11 software on an Amiga, using the Amiga's peripherals and display and sharing data between the two. It's a shame they were expensive, although even with the price they were actually competitive with many PCs of the day.
His scripts are much more reminiscent of classic Who than the Moffat and RTD ones. If you imagine really badly made props instead of the relatively decent CGI then they could easily be classic episodes. Even things like having an ensemble of companions rather than just one or two is more like the very early series.
Star Trek was an SJW-fest from the very start. Every story was preachy, to the point where they had things like a race that was literally half black and half white, space Nazis, space Native Americans, space hippies...
Star Wars's Empire was also basically space Nazis with a cheezy redemption story where only the chosen one and/or love can save the day.
The last series of Who wasn't any more preachy than the earlier ones, it's just that people are hyper-sensitive to it now and confirmation bias makes them think that was why they didn't like it. In reality if you didn't like the last series then you probably didn't like most of Who, because before every problem was solved by pointing a sonic screwdriver at it the show was basically about a space SJW going around interfering with all the bad people in the universe.
The questioner is hopelessly confused anyway. For example, YouTube has some of the best streaming quality, especially with 4k videos. What makes YouTube videos look bad is when the person editing and uploading the video doesn't know what they are doing.
It certainly would be possible to create some kind of measure of video quality, but it could be gamed and would be of limited use. All you can do is verify that the specs that the streaming services claim are true (e.g. 1080p frames are being sent) and look at the encoding format and average/peak bitrate. Subjective comparison is hard as they often don't have identical test videos for comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
The male models are photoshopped too. They use make-up just the same as the women.
Not just fashion models either, but regularly for TV models and music stars too. Like when they made Bieber's abs and dick bigger.
if someone is so weak-minded that they base their self-worth on what a bunch of whores on Instagram say is important
I see you didn't read TFA, and don't have any grasp of basic psychology.
Have you ever noticed how people can do things they normally would not do sometimes, particularly if they are part of a crowd or movement? That's because people's behaviour is governed by certain social norms and what they personally consider to be reasonable, and when they notice that other people are acting beyond those bounds it gives them a kind of permission to do it as well.
People suffering from mental illness are particularly vulnerable to this. Put extremely simply they are already feeling pretty bad about themselves, and then they find a community on the internet that seems to understand them and validates their behaviour and their feelings. You know, kinda like how nerds often feel isolated at school but then find that there are communities of like-minded individuals in clubs and on forums and it makes them feel better about being a nerd.
Calling people suffering from mental illness "whores" and suggesting that companies like Instagram should just let them self harm until they somehow reason their way back to health is fucked up. If you saw someone get seriously injured in an accident would you just say "let that be a lesson to them (assuming they don't bleed to death)"? And many of them are children, and one of the things you should know about kids is that they are still developing mentally and don't have all the tools that adults do to deal with the stuff being thrown at them.
Emotionally impacted girls (and possibly some guys)
It's just as bad for guys. Endless bombardment with unattainable images of perfect male bodies and toxic ideas about what masculinity is and what it means to be a man. It's easy to laugh at the tactical matte black male grooming tool, but that's just the tip of the iceberg and it makes a lot of men feel inadequate and like they are failing somehow.
I had a look and it's literally impossible to report problematic hashtags on Instagram. Apparently unless you are major media organization giving them bad press then they don't care.
Jesus fucking Christ DNS-and-BIND, not everything is about SJWs. In fact almost nothing is.
This is about advertisers. Advertisers are not SJWs, they are morally bankrupt shit peddlers who only care about the bottom line. And the bottom line is best served by being as inoffensive as possible to as many people as possible.
As much as the edgy kids love edgy YouTubers, they don't have any money and it's their more conservative parents who the advertisers need to avoid offending.
Most of the stuff they left out isn't really cool, it's just edgy bullshit for edgy teens.
Most of the popular stuff on YouTube is that kind of rubbish, or stuff for very young kids, or music videos, or meta-outrage. Would be nice if they included some really cool and interesting stuff, like some of the more niche channels. Show us some wood/metalworking stuff instead of 50 different Fortnight clips.
Sigh. Anyway, at least we agree that CRTs don't have pixels, right?
What we mean is that CRTs were not like LCDs with a fixed number of physical pixels. The holes in the grill and the dots on the screen are not pixels like on an LCD, pixels in a video frame.
The video is using the common definition of the term and does in fact explain the actual resolution that you mention.
The agreement requires countries to submit data on their compliance to the UN. It states how such data is to be collected. They rules are designed to prevent cheating and of course countries will monitor each other, e.g. any country with climate science satellites or nearby ground stations can tell if there is cheating going on.
Every country must set targets regularly and they must always be lower than the previous ones.
Enforcement is via the usual UN mechanisms. So for example when the UN enacts sanctions they are widely respected and cause the subject of the sanctions great problems and economic loss. In this case it would probably not be sanctions but would be justification for tariffs or international lawsuits or complaints through the WTO.
In theory a country could just decide to not go along with the agreement. Well, the US already pulled out of Paris. But in practice there will be consequences, and as we have seen in the past countries do tend to make a genuine effort to comply and meet their goals (including China which exceeded its last very aggressive target, and even the US which is being driven by states despite the federal government's position).
Put it another way, if you think people and nations only behave well because they are forced to by law and the threat of legal sanction or military force then you must not have looked at recent history.
The latest and greatest Samsung panels use a different pattern: https://fscl01.fonpit.de/userf...
It is standard for all OLED displays though, so yeah this lawsuit doesn't have much merit.
CRTs didn't have resolutions, that's not how they worked. The dots were not pixels.
There is a great video explaining it here: https://youtu.be/Ea6tw-gulnQ
The agreement is legally binding. It sets out how countries will meet their climate goals, and how poorer countries will get financial assistance to do it. For example it sets up rules on carbon trading between richer and poorer nations. It also sets out the legal consequence for climate change and how they will be enforced, and the way that compliance will be measured.
Linux has benefitted immensely from commercial contributions. In fact the majority of work is now done by people being paid to do it. I don't know about JDK but it seems similar.
Seems that for the sake of retaining a few swear words out of the source that could be a big loss.
As to who decides, I guess it's the same SJWs who decided you masturbate in public, i.e. fascists.
It would scale, increased memory bandwidth on AGA demonstrated that.
Does Chinese even have swear words? Japanese doesn't, not really. Even on kids shows they say things like "kuso" (shit) because it's seen as impolite but the concept of "words that simply should not be uttered even though they mean the same as other words that are impolite but not swear words" doesn't exist.
I always thought the "increase this counter every time you try to improve this and fail" comment was more effective for keeping people away from tricky code. I normally start at 7.
I'm starting to suspect that the compiler doesn't...
It also cost twice as much. The BBC Archimedes 305 was £800 on release in 1987, the 1MB model was an extra £75. And that's without a monitor or any software. The A500 was half the price, game bundled with games and software, and could work on a standard TV.
That's one of the reasons why the Archimedes never sold well outside of academia. It was a great machine, not not really attractive to consumers.
The Amiga was expandable too. The original A1000 had expansion slots, and the A500 had an expansion port on the side that was similar to an ISA slot and one on the bottom for RAM or CPU upgrades.
But that was rather missing the point. For 500 bucks you could get a power computer that didn't need upgrading or expanding, and which didn't have the resulting compatibility issues. You could buy Amiga software and expect it to work properly on your system, you didn't need to really understand computers or hardware to get what you needed, and the base price included everything.
By the way, those original Soundblaster and Adlib cards were shit compared to the standard Amiga sound. By the time PC graphics caught up it was well into the fast 368/VGA era.
2 years was a long time back then, and you can clearly see the influence of the Amiga in the Archimedes design, in both the hardware and the OS. Amiga OS proved that full preemptive multitasking and multimedia was possible on low cost home computers, at a time when everyone else (Microsoft, Apple, DRI, IBM and more) were failing to deliver.
Plus the Archimedes cost twice as much as an A500 at the time of launch.
As for "best computer ever made", I'd argue that it is for certain values of "best". No other machine was as fun to code for IMHO, or as influential. After the video game crash it was also were a lot of 16 bit developers got started and many of them are still around (e.g. DMA/Rockstar and DICE).
The Amiga hardware was incredible at the time, even though it had some severe limitations. In many ways that's what made it such a fun computer to code for, you could do so much hacking but also it needed so much care and guile to get the best out of.
For example, the standard machines only came with RAM that was shared between the CPU and chipset. That was how most machines were back then, and it created bottlenecks. To produce those high resolution, colourful graphics the chipset needed to use a lot of the available RAM bandwidth just to produce the video output. It was possible to add extra RAM that only the CPU could access and make the whole system much faster because the CPU and chipset could then operate in parallel, but for some reason Commodore never upgraded the base machines (the A500, 500+, 600 and 1200) to work that way.
Even so, it was possible to get some incredible results from the hardware. Shadow of the Beast is often cited as an example, but there were many such as Lionheart and even 3D games like No Second Prize. Let's look at Beast for a moment. That famous level 1 with all the parallax scrolling.
Firstly the Amiga supports some hardware parallax in the form of "dual playfield" mode, but the front and back fields are limited to 7 colours each. Extra layers of parallax were added by using sprites, of which the classic Amigas only had 8 and they were limited to 32 pixels wide and 4 colours (or 16 colours if you combined two, but then you only had 4 to play with). And of course, enabling sprites used up even more of the available memory bandwidth, as did dual playfield mode.
In fact memory bandwidth was often the limit on the Amiga. Once you went over 16 colours or enabled 7/7 colour dual playfield mode the CPU started to slow down because it was starved of memory access cycles more than usual. Add in sprites and sound and there wasn't much left for the CPU, let along the blitter (a fairly primitive kind of 2D GPU that was basically good for copying images).
Remember the Bridgeboard series? Basically an x86 CPU computer on a card that allowed you to run DOS and even Windows 3.11 software on an Amiga, using the Amiga's peripherals and display and sharing data between the two. It's a shame they were expensive, although even with the price they were actually competitive with many PCs of the day.
His scripts are much more reminiscent of classic Who than the Moffat and RTD ones. If you imagine really badly made props instead of the relatively decent CGI then they could easily be classic episodes. Even things like having an ensemble of companions rather than just one or two is more like the very early series.
Some people have very poor memories.
Star Trek was an SJW-fest from the very start. Every story was preachy, to the point where they had things like a race that was literally half black and half white, space Nazis, space Native Americans, space hippies...
Star Wars's Empire was also basically space Nazis with a cheezy redemption story where only the chosen one and/or love can save the day.
The last series of Who wasn't any more preachy than the earlier ones, it's just that people are hyper-sensitive to it now and confirmation bias makes them think that was why they didn't like it. In reality if you didn't like the last series then you probably didn't like most of Who, because before every problem was solved by pointing a sonic screwdriver at it the show was basically about a space SJW going around interfering with all the bad people in the universe.
The questioner is hopelessly confused anyway. For example, YouTube has some of the best streaming quality, especially with 4k videos. What makes YouTube videos look bad is when the person editing and uploading the video doesn't know what they are doing.
It certainly would be possible to create some kind of measure of video quality, but it could be gamed and would be of limited use. All you can do is verify that the specs that the streaming services claim are true (e.g. 1080p frames are being sent) and look at the encoding format and average/peak bitrate. Subjective comparison is hard as they often don't have identical test videos for comparison.