Comment by plussed_reader
Comment by plussed_reader 11 days ago
But also a convenient excuse to sell more ramm and disk space 'for the textures'.
Comment by plussed_reader 11 days ago
But also a convenient excuse to sell more ramm and disk space 'for the textures'.
To an absolute hardliner for appropriate technology, probably -- but simplicity isn't necessarily all-or-nothing, and (IMO) helping people pull off cool things with simpler tools isn't so bad.
Sure, but we're not talking about how to irrigate a field here, we're talking about being limited to 600x800 resolution when playing a game.
Some people were teenagers when that was the best you could get, so I'm guessing they see it as a "good old days" baseline that they can be principled about while indulging their nostalgia.
I can see that, but I think calling it just nostalgia-driven is judging a book by its cover.
First off, I want to say you can totally have a design ethos that covers game engines as much as irrigation systems -- Lee Felsenstein explicitly cited Ivan Illich's notion of 'convivial technology' as an influence on his modems. And Illich mostly talked about bicycles.
What I see in this project is a specific kind of appropriate technology -- 'toaster compatibility' -- mixed with conscious adoption of old methods and aesthetics to serve and signal that end. Which is cool, IMO.
HTMX uses similar techniques in trying to 'bring back' hypermedia and reduce dependencies, although I think they're after a different kind of simplicity. And of course, their Hypermedia Systems book makes similar nods to 90s-software aesthetics: https://hypermedia.systems/
I remember that was the best I can get and I was thrilled for it at the time. But then I was even more thrilled when Far Cry came out. Then Crysis ... why would I go back? Now you surely can argue, that nowdays the creativity got lower in favour of just more textures, but I like to have both.
Still, for a simple game limiting to 800x600 for performance and dev reasons - why not? But for me it means I see no use case for myself.
It is enough to make gameplay the main challenge?
Somebody in rural Africa once told me, "one advantage you have living in a colder area is that you don't have to run your fridge for half the year!" I honestly didn't have any good answer for him as to why I do anyway.
That's actually kind of a "cool" idea. Likely reduce bills significantly with some kind of external HVAC connection, like your dryer, that pulls in cold air from a shaded overhang on the side away from solar input (or maybe underground).
This paper [1] has some discussion of testing differences between 16 C, 25 C, and 31 C ambient exhaust conditions. It's actually a fairly significant difference under testing. ~(0.35, 0.70, 1.05) kWh / 24h for (16 degC, 25 degC, 31 degC). Refrigerators in experiments were kept at ~ 5 degC (approx 600 tests).
[1] https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/82169783/j.ijrefrig.20...
Fridge in winter isn't wasteful. All the energy consumed goes towards heating
Depending on what "colder" means, some days it'll still be too warm outside, or some days it will be freezing, or both. Neither is good for many foods or drinks you keep in your fridge.
Of course this might still be micro-optimization from a rural Africa point of view. And a part of the reason for running the fridge is still just convention and convenience.
in rural plqces often they will also use alternate ways to keep things good besides keeping things cold, because its cheaper or more easily available than using a fridge. drying things, salting (pickle? not sure of the term sry) etc. so they have less usecases for a fridge than us (lazy?) ppl whi just throw a fridge at any such problem of food preservation
I would argue refrigerators provide a lot more utility for most people than high poly counts.
I think I’ve gained more utility from being able to look at 3 spreadsheets at once than I’ve gained from my refrigerator(not if we’re counting the refrigeration of the supply chain for food and medicine then that wins out by a landslide)
Most people don't need 3 monitors. Pretty much everyone needs or has a fridge except for the least fortunate in society. He said most people, so u just fall in the much, much smaller minority with a bit of a questionable claim. Like, If u had to give up one, it'd be your fridge over monitors? Utility of the monitors runs out when u have to spend time getting fresh ingredients every other day.
Fake Optimization in Modern Graphics (And How We Hope To Save It):
A higher rendering resolution doesn't require higher resolution textures, and a higher source resolution for textures is what would require more storage and more RAM. (I think a higher rendering resolution does require more video RAM though.)
Of course after some point a higher rendering resolution starts giving diminishing returns if the resolution for the source material isn't also increased.
"This is like the conspiracy that women's pants don't have pockets to sell more purses."
Oh my god, this explains everything!
(btw. I recently learned, that the 9/11 inside job conspiracy evolved. Nowdays the standard theory is, that there were not even planes in the first place, just bombs and smoke)
I cant tell if you're on the side of conspiracy or not but you are correct that no plane crashed into building 7. Debris fell from 1 and 2 and set the building on fire, and since there was no fire suppression, it all went up pretty badly
Hard to know how to respond to that. This could be applied to virtually all technology changes that benefit users but also make money for someone else.
I assume you use a refrigerator and not a hole in the ground with ice. Have you been manipulated into giving money to Big Appliance?