ehaliewicz2

Youtube purports itself to be a free site, so I'm not sure why one would ask this question.

Does google really have the right to block my control over what is shown or not shown on my computer? They may have the ability to do so, but that is not necessarily equivalent to a right.

For example, what if I had a robot that detected when an ad was being played on youtube, and automatically turned off my monitor and headphones momentarily, turning them back on once the ad was over. Would that violate google's "rights"?

However, me not buying something is quite obviously not equivalent to theft.

Besides, I only watch youtube ad-free. If this becomes impossible I will simply stop watching youtube, so, I don't think this strategy will have much effect on me either, at least within the context of youtube.

There is no theft when I use youtube because I was never going to click on ads in the first place.

The value of me watching ads is absolutely zero. (From my point of view in fact, it's negative).

Yep, it is not worth it anymore. I got mine for my trip at the end of the year on literally the last day it was on sale :). End of an era.

Many people who ride it have one of various train passes that reduce the cost, or have a plan with work that covers it. I usually use a JR pass, it's pretty expensive without it.

execute-only as in no reading?

It's possible that really high end bikes (either sportbikes, or fancy tourers like goldwings) do, but ABS isn't really about maximum braking performance. It is about maintaining maneuverability during emergency braking (given that tires have a limited amount of grip, this is opposed to achieving the minimum possible braking distance).

>But maybe the calculus changes with motorcycles' higher speed, as maintaining steerability becomes that much more important?

It's just a panic response. Everybody on a motorcycle (hopefully) knows that you should be using front brake to slow down as quickly as possible, unless you need to swerve of course :)

Pumping the brakes is what you do if you cannot threshold brake. You lose traction, so let off the brakes to regain grip, then apply again and repeat, hence pumping.

This might be a little too far, but I sometimes say to my friends that a minor crash should actually be part of driver training. Modern cars feel extremely safe, and nearly drive themselves, so many people do not take driving as seriously as they should, and not as seriously as they do after they have their first collision.

Perhaps being required to actually use 100% braking power to pass is enough :)

In this respect, motorcycle training courses are MUCH better, and have numerous braking and swerving drills, but they have to be, because motorcycles require a higher-level of attention and are significantly more dangerous to operate than a car.

>A software emulator cannot run a physical ROM cart, right?

Why not? There's the polymega which is using software emulation and has addons to support running games via cartridges.

According to this page (https://books.google.com/ngrams/info), if you want to write a paper based on their results (why would you do this against a cute dataset?) make sure to quote their very authoritative sounding paper "Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books"

I'm curious what the loss for a typical constant-mesh manual gearbox would be. I assumed 90% or more efficiency.

I find simple loops over simple data more understandable than inheritance chains and pointer chasing.

Plenty of cities get away with garages that don't require an app. Don't normalize shitty things like that.

Making roads narrower e.g. in residential areas, causes drivers to slow down, making it more safe for everyone.

Programming isn't always soulless and artless. That's how I'd describe work, but not side projects.

It actually does interpret bytecode, you can see the opcode definitions here https://github.com/chrismaltby/gb-studio/blob/1f995a976bd3aa...

The trick is that a lot of the heavier stuff is implemented in assembly and this is mostly used for scripting (from what I understand).

It has been over a year since the algorithm has been explained in quite a bit of detail.

Hobbyists make complicated things quite regularly, although I don't know about 10x quake.

10x a quake for modern hardware, maybe (could be quite simple)

10x software rendered dos quake with loads of asm, probably not.

Pretty sure he means given a single compiler.

Casey does say that almost always you don't need to "optimize", but rather just need to think about the execution of your code on hardware. This video isn't quite as nuanced, but he does talk about this in other ones.

Nope, there are recent studies that dispute this. Of course, there are older studies that dispute those newer studies.

However, it is clear that dietary fat does not just directly go into your circulatory system.

Turns out you need several cores to match SSDs now, so it's actually quite hard to match them.

How many times do you decompress the textures, and how many times do you download them?

>(the most important thing, since raw assets often load faster from an SSD as long as you have available storage.)

>You can argue every single file should be compressed at rest on persistent storage after install, but that's a losing argument. People really hate longer load times, so compression at rest is only appropriate if it improves them.

Is this really true? I feel like you'd need an absolutely blisteringly fast SSD to match something like an modern, optimized lz decompressor's speed.

Of course, the other possibility is that they were aware of it, but it was somewhere in a long list of things that they would have liked to fix, but did not have time for.

It's easy to say something like that, but as mentioned above, games are generally duct taped together at the literal last minute and it's easy to miss things that, to outsiders, seem obvious. The difference is that we aren't looking at literally every piece of the game and rushing to fix as many bugs as possible, like the devs, we're just looking at the file size.

Just wait until you try Ventura. Every submenu in the systems settings menu has gone from being perfectly fast, to taking around two seconds to load (at least on my 2019 MBP)..

This seems like needless pedantry. The computer should be able to easily do it in 16ms or less. Add on the 16ms or whatever of extra latency for the mouse and display, and it's fine.

Even more annoying than the idolization of game devs is when you open up the "Displays" submenu of the osx system preferences application, and it takes several times longer to load than the previous major os version, several seconds!, with the only significant change being a different layout, and constantly trying to ignore how nearly everything takes so much longer than necessary, wasting so much time and energy.

I agree that not everything is like a game, but it makes me legitimately sad when it seems like nobody cares about performance (aside from a few domains).