There are different perspectives on how voting should work, such as voting based on "does this contribute to this discussion / to this community" vs based on "do I agree with this / do I like this".
Either way, blanket-downvoting something instead of voting based on the content's merit seems to be behaviour to be discouraged.
Region code 0 ("Worldwide") discs work in all regions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_region_code
Rise of Nations (originally released back in 2003) had/has some interesting ideas to reduce some of the busywork:
For the most part, none of the implemented options are strictly better than micromanaging them yourself:
But the options are there when you need them, which I think is a a nice design. It doesn't completely remove best-in-class players being rewarded for their speed as a player, but does raise the "speed floor", allowing slower players to get more bang for their buck APM-wise, and compete a bit more on the strategy/tactics side of the game instead.
Then let's transcribe part of the opening:
~~I know what you're thinking -- it's a stupid question, it's an FPS. It's the definitive FPS. And it's a fair point. DOOM ticks all the boxes required for a reasonable definition of a first person shooter. It's presented from a first-person perspective, and shooting the bad guys is a key part of it. But the FPS genre didn't exist when DOOM was released. The term "first person shooter" wasn't common until a few years later.~~
~~So what genre was DOOM? How was it originally described?~~
Edit I've now understood that quoting most of the video's opening salvo has unfortunately misrepresented the video's contents to the people who are still trying to leave comments without actually watching it. It's a video about what DOOM's genre is and what DOOM's genre was, not only the latter. The title looks clickbait-y but is honestly pretty accurate regarding the subject of the video.
Patch notes have 3 weapons/stratagems getting nerfed vs 5 weapons/stratagems getting buffed. I don't own the game but it sounds like they're already hitting it from both sides? If they do nothing but buffs there's a huge risk of just powercreeping everything.
Actual summary:
While you're free to circlejerk about how the article shows how great UBI is, that's not really what it talks about.
As an aside, you can edit your submission title on lemmy/kbin/mbin.
Unless you're also throwing money at YouTube premium (etc), isn't this by definition unsustainable to do? So it's not really a viable long-term strategy either.
Like don't get me wrong, I don't want all the tracking and stuff either, but somebody has to pay those server bills. If it's not happening through straight cash then it's going to be through increasingly aggressive monetization and cost-cutting strategies.
You seem to be using the term "open source" for what is instead commonly called "source-available", which has a distinct meaning from open source.
[Source-available software] includes arrangements where the source can be viewed, and in some cases modified, but without necessarily meeting the criteria to be called open-source.
[Open-source software] is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.
edit: fixed duplicated phrasing
It depends a lot on what's being encoded, which is also why different people (who've actually tested it with some sample images) give slightly different answers. On "average" photos, there's broadly agreement that WebP and MozJpeg are close. Some will say WebP is a little better, some will say they're even, some will say MozJpeg is still a little better. Seems to mostly come down to the samples tested, what metric is used for performance, etc.
I (re)compress a lot of digital art, and WebP does really well most of the time there. Its compression artifacts are (subjectively) less perceptible at the level of quality I compress at (fairly high quality settings), and it can typically achieve slightly-moderately better compression than MozJpeg in doing so as well. Based on my results, it seems to come down to being able to optimize for low-complexity areas of the image much more efficiently, such as a flatly/ evenly shaded area (which doesn't happen in a photo).
One thing WebP really struggles with by comparison is the opposite: grainy or noisy images, which I believe is a big factor in why different sets of images seems to produce different results favoring either WebP or JPEG. Take this (PNG) digital artwork as an extreme example: https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/111638638
This image has had a lot of grain added to it, and so both encoders end up with a much higher file size than typical for digital artwork at this resolution. But if I put a light denoiser on there to reduce the grain, look at how the two encoders scale:
Subjectively I have a preference for the visual tradeoffs on the WebP version of this image. I think the minor loss of details (e.g., in her eyes) is less noticeable than the JPEG version's worse preservation of the grain and more obvious "JPEG compression" artifacts around the edges of things (e.g., the strand of hair on her cheek).
And you might say "fair enough it's the bigger image", but now let's take more typical digital art that hasn't been doused in artificial grain (and was uploaded as a PNG): https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/112049434
Subjectively I once again prefer the tradeoffs made by WebP. Its most obvious downside in this sample is ~~on the small red-tinted particles coming off of the sparkler being less defined,~~ [see second edit notes] probably the slightly blockier background gradient, but I find this to be less problematic than e.g., the fuzz around all of the shooting star trails.. and all of the aforementioned particles.
Across dozens of digital art samples I tested on, this paradigm of "WebP outperforms for non-grainy images, but does comparable or worse for grainy images" has held up. So yeah, depends on what you're trying to compress! I imagine grain/noise and image complexity would scale in a similar way for photos, hence some of (much of?) the variance in people's results when comparing the two formats with photos.
Edit: just to showcase the other end of the spectrum, namely no-grain, low complexity images, here's a good example that isn't so undetailed that it might feel contrived (the lines are still using textured [digital] brushes): https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/112404351
I quite strongly prefer the WebP version here, even though the JPEG is 39% larger!
Edit2: I've corrected the example with the sparkler - I wrote the crossed out section from memory from when I did this comparison for my own purposes, but when I was doing that I was also testing MozJpeg without chroma subsampling (4:4:4 - better color detail). With chroma subsampling set to 4:2:0, improved definition of the sparkler particles doesn't really apply anymore and is certainly no longer the "most obvious" difference to the WebP image!
The advertised “regular device upgrades” will never happen for anyone as part of Pixel Pass, even customers who battled Google’s servers to order a Pixel 6 the moment they became available (it’s me; I’m one of those people) because there’s still more than a month to go before the very first customers in would cross the two-year mark and be eligible to upgrade.
So a core part of the premise of Pixel Pass (device upgrades) is being lost, even to existing Pixel Pass users.
Original marketing from 2021:
Pixel Pass brings together the latest Pixel phone with Google’s best mobile services, device protection and regular device upgrades — all in one easy subscription. (emphasis added)
Or 53.6 degrees Fahrenheit if you believe whoever wrote the page for Nissan lmao. I guess they just typed it into a converter with no context, and the converter spat out an answer amounting to "if your thermometer says it's 12 degrees C, that would be 53.6 degrees F"... but without that context.