LOL You know what makes your comment hilarious? You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're completely wrong. Yes, there was an art style. Prior to 2010, there certainly were films with a washed out look or sepia feel, such as Oh, Brother Where Art Thou?, 2001. But when the new digital RAW format 4K professional video camera was released in 2007, followed by the 6K and 8K versions, no one could figure out why the footage was washed out. That's just the nature of RAW, and post-production didn't understand digital color timing or color correction. Beginning in 2010, there is a long series of national film and TV releases leading up to today that just used the color-uncorrected footage because, without understanding, they had no choice. X-Art releases are just one example, but the most notorious example is Shutter Island, 2010, so even major releases with top tier actors and directors were having the problem and hiding it with "artistic choice." Another is Drive, 2011, which has wonky colors and can't decide between sepia and saturated colors. Every time another studio switches to the RAW format, you see them release a bunch of "artist choice" releases. But that's bullshit. Google "RAW video format washed out." Everyone seems to have the problem when they are first introduced to RAW. After 13 years I would have expected X-Art to figure it out, but they never figured out digital color timing and color correction of their RAW footage, and all their release show no post-production.

I hate X-Art and everything that's washed-out pretentiously professing to be artsy when the problem is they obviously don't know how to use RAW format HD video cameras.

Rosetta 2 does not support x86, only x86_64, and it only translates Intel binaries to native. Emulating hardware is very complex and slow because there is a lot overhead in emulating storage devices, console output devices, ethernet devices, keyboards, and the entire CPU. Rosetta 2 can not ever support kernel extensions or vector processor calls because Rosetta 2 is not emulating an Intel processor. , it merely translates code. It is not trivial nor even possible to emulate hardware at native processor performance. No one has ever done it, and no one ever will. So I am sure we all eagerly await the release of your trivially implemented native hardware performant machine emulator.

How is this different from any other platform? Done much ARM or PPC emulation on x86? Your iisue is with emulation, not Apple's M1.

False. You absolute *can* run Intel-based OS on M1 (and apparently you already are if you're emulating an Intel processor), just like you can run ARM-based OS on Intel, but in each case the non-native processor must be emulated, but no one anywhere ever expects emulated processors to perform at native processor speeds. And if you're running Windows 11 ARM on M1 there is no need to emulate anything, and others are reporting decent performance. Since you believe you are emulating, even as you deny emulation on M1, there's a great chance you're running the Intel version of Windows 11 in an emulator like qemu instead of Windows 11 ARM in a virtual machine like Parallels.

First of all, you seem to be confused about the difference between virtualization and emulation. Virtualization runs platform-native OS on the platform-native processor at full processor speeds. Emulation, on the other hand, reproduces the function of one platform on a different platform. Operating systems are virtualized, while hardware processors or, separately, application software are emulated. Until Rosetta and Rosetta 2, emulators have always run non-native software slower that native software and for good reason. Apple is not keeping anything from you, and there is nothing to "open up." Rosetta 2 simply does not support virtualization. Rosetta 2 is not emulating a processor. Instead it is emulating Intel application software by recompiling Intel code for the M1 processor on the fly, which is why it so fast and why it will never support virtualization.

fwiw, I've always held a similar or same position, (GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are too restrictive) but could never make the case as strong as you've made it. I wouldn't have bothered to say this had it not been for the assholes needlessly insulting you. When the argument is bulletproof, the weak-minded will resort to personal attacks.

Aren't mutually compatible GPLv3 and AGPLv3 both strong copyleft licenses? Apple Preview is proprietary software, so how could it have used Ghostscript without distributing Preview source code?

If Preview uses Ghostscript code, licensing would be a reason for Apple to drop support of ps and eps, but Apple also tends to drop support of things in advance of their decline. Since commercial printing switched away from EPS and PS to PDF over 20 years ago, I'm not sure where PS and EPS has been used popularly, other than maybe PS being used to write printer drivers.

Preview isn't the only way to generate PS files in macOS. PS can be generated through print dialogues, but I don't have Ventura to confirm whether that functionality has also been removed.

Your troll is pathetic. RoP had about 30M domestic viewers, a little more than three times the ratings of HotD, and roughly 10% of the total US population. They're not remotely in trouble, but poised to become the most popular television show of all time. Time to hand in your troll card.

I am a little but annoyed at the title, "The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power," which is quite a mouthful and mildly pretentious. Tolkien didn't have a title for LotR; it was added by the publisher. And it is an annoying long title. Should have been simply called, "Rings of Power," no qualifier and no definite article.

This is true, but not comprehensive. Amazon acquired the rights to Jackson's LotR and Hobbit films, and along with these also those books, because New Line had those rights. Yet what we have seen so far in RoP is inexplicably entirely based on Jackson's five minute Prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring, that early synopsis of the forging of the rings of power and the Last Alliance, and which Cate Blanchett narrates as Galadriel.

Again, though they have those rights, they have not much bothered with the material in the Appendices. It is Jackson's Prologue they have massively expanded. And it annoys me also they didn't just purchase partial rights to The Silmarillion. those regarding the Second and Third Ages, regarding Galadriel and Sauron in Middle-Earth, the forging of the rings of power, and regarding Númenor and its destruction. With the massive investment they made, it could have been better just to get some of the finer details correct rather than invent and embellish.

Just as I was thrown off by Halbrand's ears, I could be wrong here also, but the Ithryn Luin also arrive by swan boat to the Grey Havens about TA1000, wear robes of sea blue, go with Saruman into the East, and, of course, there are two of them and they arrive and travel together.

Círdan gave Narya to Gandalf at the Grey Havens when Gandalf arrived in Middle-Earth c.TA1000. So Gandalf always wore Narya from his arrival and afterwards. Bilbo's 111th birthday was TA3001, about 2000 years later. The Quest for Erebor was in TA2941. It is thought Gandalf had some proclivity with fire without Narya, but only to warm and kindle hearts, nothing as expansive as what we've seen in RoP so far.

Since they apparently dispatched with Annatar and made Halband, a human, Sauron, I think it is likely the Stranger is Gandalf. In the early episodes the rune he was carving over and over in the dirt and on that fallen tree trunk was the digraph "gh," which happens to be the mirror image of the "g" he carved on Bilbo's door at Bag End, and signed his letter with to Frodo at Bree. But how would he know his name was Gandalf if that was given to him by men? He hasn't yet met any men. RoP either screwed up or are taking massive license, bringing him in thousands of years too early, by meteor, with incredible powers over fire, both anachronistic, but the Stranger is too powerful not to be Gandalf. If the Stranger was one of the unknown number of lesser Istari, and not one of the five chiefs, how could he be so powerful? So it's Gandalf and we just have to deal with the fact that the writers ignored the details Tolkien gave, and they exaggerated.

Amazon apparently failed to realize that opposites attract. Regardless, we are all the Children of Ilúvatar.

Honestly, with the exception of Nori (and, separately, those with the Stranger), I also found the Harfoot scenes annoying at first, as a bone thrown to children, and even out of respect for Tolkien's reasons for composing The Hobbit, I didn't care for them. But over the series, as the Harfoots rich culture was revealed, these scenes became less annoying, more interesting, and at times pretty funny. I think it is a shame Sadoc was lost, as his character was one of the more developed of the Harfoot characters, and I found his accent and pronunciations interesting. I think Lenny Henry was very well cast.

This is a matter of personal taste. You, in your opinion, do not find the characters interesting, for reasons unknown and not given. Not everyone is you and not everyone lacks taste.

This has been claimed often, inaccurately so on its face, coming from a misunderstanding of what a Mary Sue is, as is evident by your statements that are entirely unsupportive of whether Galadriel'a depiction is a Mary Sue or not. A Mary Sue is a female character who is depicted as unrealistically lacking in flaws or weaknesses. But the RoP Galadriel is anything but flawless nor omnipotent. She is depicted as all too human, when elves are distinctly strange creatures, Galadriel is not nearly weird enough. Elves are weird, and this is underscored many times especially by Orlando Bloom's Legolas, but also Liv Tyler's Arwen, both Hugo Weaving's and Robert Aramayo's Elronds, Cate Blanchett's Galadriel, and Craig Parker's Haldir. Morfydd Clark's Galadriel is likely depicted as more human than usually elf-like to make her more relatable to the audience, as she is the hero of the show. Rather than showing weird elven qualities, she will be shown with heroic qualities, and the hero is never perfect and thus can never be a Mary Sue, not the least reasons for which Galadriel was rescued separately by Halbrand, Elendil, and Míriel. A Mary Sue would never need rescuing.

Gil-Galad was the uncontested last heir of the kings of the Noldor in exile and acknowledged by all as High King of the Elves of the West. Galadriel not only supported him, Gil-Galad only became king due to Galadriel's influence, so it would have been against her character and hypocritical if she did not follow his commands.

Not so much. Galadriel was not a control freak nor a tyrant, and humility and obedience, except on rare occasion, were among her ordinary qualities.