For some reason, Amiga coders like to charge way too much for newly developed software. It's kind of sad how the machine that had such a strong open source ethos early on (before "open source" was even a defined term) has turned into such a cesspool of money grubbers.

They should at least open source the old BCPL version of the OS (so basically 1.x).

The problem with that is, very few seniors have the neuroplasticity to learn modern video gaming. To be good at it when you're a senior, you have to do it regularly throughout your life. That's not just relative to gaming, that's relative to *everything in life*.

Those who start later in life are categorically worse at a given activity. Look at the top leaderboard or achievements on every single video game older than a decade. Every record is going to be held by someone relatively young.

I also say this as a 39-year-old expert Guitar Hero player who, while being one of the best *publicly active* players of my age, also recognizes that there are a metric fuckton of younger people who literally have the game *woven into their muscle memory*. Some of them started playing the game at a single-digit age - Guitar Hero didn't even *exist* until I was 25 and a half years old. That's a lot of additional neuroplasticity that the newer players have been able to make use of. And even amongst the more god-tier players, the ones who came along in the last few years at a quite young age and have an entire corpus of technique and methodology to build open are the ones making the most gains in accuracy and speed.

Age isn't the *only* reason they're better, of course. I believe I've identified a few physical shortcomings that I either cannot surpass, or will need to work extremely hard to surpass. But the point remains is that, younger people have a greater ability to *learn new things*, whatever they may be, and this is perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with that.

Too bad we don't believe that if it punishes a single innocent person, then it's bad, like we're supposed to

You obviously know nothing about LSD lmao

Eating small pills in a dimly lit room with a maze and drony electronic sounds? Gotta protect the kids from drugs!

By that metric, nothing is worth preserving, since death is the big unknown and everyone's going to die.

The difference is that video games are fictional, while media coverage is of reality. They're not fungible.

I don't know about that. I'd put them at about the same level of trustworthiness.

None.

I don't think they understand the meaning of "end to end encryption". If someone else can access the cleartext, then it's not "end to end encryption".

But that's on an individual station basis. There *do* exist stations that use must-carry. The networks should be seeking retransmission fees for their O&Os and not trying to shut the whole company down.

This is literally exactly what the cable industry did in its' infancy. They retransmitted local channels via wire to the end user. The only difference here is 45 years or so of entrenchment, and cross-ownership between the networks and the content distributors (cable/satellite).

I'd almost like to see variable frame rate become a thing. 24fps for a deeper "film feel" during low motion scenes, and then 48fps for high-motion scenes. Almost all of those type of frame rate shifts could be done on scene boundaries to prevent sudden shot continuity breaks.

I'd wager that's more of a cultural thing than anything else. 24fps has been used as the standard film frame rate for so long that it's become a core component of the "feel" of a true film in almost everybody.

Think about it this way. If films or motion pictures were only just now being invented (but TV-style short form content was the established juggernaut), and there were already established expectations of 60fps being the "standard" frame rate for visual entertainment, do you think that films at 60fps would be considered unnatural? I highly doubt it.

Maybe it's a subconscious perception of what the type of material "should" look like (based on non-technical factors like the age of the material, the form in which it was originally consumed)? I know that even though modern films have rock solid frame stability, it almost seems "wrong" in a subjective way when old black-and-white film is stabilized too much. Almost like the brain has been trained to expect frame bounce when a film is old. I'd suggest the idea of "24fps = film look" comes from a similar phenomenon, as even if you replicate every other factor that gives the "feel" of film, if it's not *at most* 30fps, I'd guess that most people still wouldn't say it looks like film, certainly not people invested in existing filmmaking culture.

I like the idea of 120Hz because it allows for black-frame insertion, if coupled with a display that can strobe the backlight. Plus, 120Hz on a CRT is great for rhythm gaming