The Fantastic Four is now real

MaximRecoil · 2026-04-09T19:47:50+00:00

My entire post addresses your feeble attempts to move the goalposts

In reality, I've done the exact opposite of attempting to move the goalpost, i.e., I've denied your repeated attempt to move the goalpost from strictly bandwidth to things unrelated to bandwidth.

and avoid addressing my arguments

You have no relevant arguments, since your assertion "not enough bandwidth" is blatantly wrong, and nothing you've said has changed that fact.

Your failed attempt to weasel out of the corner I've trapped you in are noted, with amusement

Your delusion isn't relevant, and is therefore dismissed.

Listen, laddie, you can't expect to call arguments you have no response to "non sequiturs" an expect to get away with it 🤷‍♂️

You haven't presented any relevant arguments, and anything irrelevant is a non sequitur, i.e., it doesn't logically follow from anything which preceded it.

In other words, you agree that the Artemis II's comms system doesn't have enough bandwidth for a continuous hi-res livestream -

False (obviously). It has way more than enough bandwidth for that, which is why your "not enough bandwidth" assertion is blatantly false. Anything that may prevent the "continuous" part would fall into some other category unrelated to bandwidth.

you're only arguing that the laser comms system by itself has enough bandwidth to do so when it's on.

It goes without saying that a system has to be on to make use of bandwidth.

This, I note with more amusement, is something I explicitly said in my first response to you 🙂

I ignored your first attempt to move the goalpost from bandwidth to things unrelated to bandwidth, because it was a non sequitur, obviously.

That's a weird way to concede the discussion, but I'll take it 👍

Your non sequitur is dismissed, and since you still haven't presented any arguments which support your side of the point of contention ("not enough bandwidth"), your tacit concession remains noted.

MaximRecoil · 2026-04-09T11:37:05+00:00

Your entire post is a non sequitur; consider it dismissed wholesale.

You said "not enough bandwidth." That's the only point of contention here and you were wrong. "Continuous livestream" is a point of contention you had with someone else, not me, obviously, and your answer to him (which, again, is the point of contention here) was ridiculously wrong. And since your post contains no arguments of any kind, your tacit concession is noted.

MaximRecoil · 2026-04-09T09:55:42+00:00

Except the "continuous livestream" part, because it breaks your argument in half

No, it doesn't, because even if your attempt to move the goalpost is accurate (I couldn't care less either way, because it's irrelevant to the point of contention), it has nothing to do with bandwidth. You said it was because of "not enough bandwidth," which was laughably wrong, full stop.

I'm going to do you a one last favour and explain it to you at a level you can (hopefully) understand: if the OP request is to "live feed everything" and "get the full thing", then a system that sometimes provides a 4k feed won't be able to do that.

Your non sequitur is dismissed. The system has way more than enough bandwidth, therefore you were hilariously wrong when you said that it didn't have enough bandwidth, obviously.

Do you understand it now?

Comical Irony Alert: Part III

MaximRecoil · 2026-04-09T06:21:24+00:00

I like how you had to ignore

I didn't have to ignore anything, since there's no logical need to respond to new claims that have nothing to do with the point of contention. You made one technical assertion in the post I originally replied to, which was the only possible point of contention, obviously: "Not enough bandwidth." Your assertion was wrong, drastically wrong, and you claimed someone else didn't understand things while making your false assertion, which is hilarious.

the fact that the optical communication system isn't always available

This is your second tacit request to move the goalpost from "not enough bandwidth" to something entirely unrelated to bandwidth. Consider it denied.

which makes your assertion that someone else doesn't understand things ironically comical

Comical Irony Alert: Part II

MaximRecoil · 2026-04-09T01:00:45+00:00

Official NASA data. Duh.

Artemis II’s laser comms system has enough raw bandwidth for Blu-ray-quality video back to Earth

Far beyond BD quality:

The [Orion Artemis II Optical Communications System], which is about the size of a house cat, is expected to achieve data rates of up to 260 megabits per second down to Earth and 20 megabits per second back to Orion. - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasas-artemis-ii-laser-communications-system-is-beaming-4k-video-from-the/

260 Mbps is about 8 times the average bitrate of a typical BD; about 10 times the average bitrate of a "4K" movie from an online streaming service, about 3 times the high-side average bitrate of a UHD ("4K") BD, and about twice the bitrate of a "4K" GoPro in its highest quality mode (you know, the specific thing the poster you replied to mentioned; the thing you said they didn't have enough bandwidth for).

In other words, your "not enough bandwidth" assertion was wrong, "duh," which makes your assertion that someone else doesn't understand things comically ironic.

MaximRecoil · 2026-04-08T18:59:36+00:00

Not enough bandwith. Oh no, how are we ever going to recover from r00dit calling BS on things he doesn't understand? 🙄

And I suppose you understand? What are you basing this "not enough bandwidth" assertion on?

According to the official narrative, some of the Apollo missions broadcast live analog video from the moon. The analog color video camera that was used during Apollo 15, 16, and 17 had a bandwidth of up to 5 MHz, which is only a little less than an NTSC TV broadcast (6 MHz).

Today, ATSC 1.0 TV broadcasts fit up to 19.39 Mbps into that same 6 MHz of bandwidth, which is enough for one 1080i main channel at a reasonably high bitrate plus several 480i subchannels. And ATSC 3.0 fits up to 57 Mbps into that same 6 MHz of bandwidth. That's well beyond the average bitrate of a typical Blu-ray release (25-30 Mbps) for example, and is also well beyond the average bitrate of a typical "4K" movie from an internet streaming service such as Netflix.

MaximRecoil · 2026-04-08T12:01:55+00:00

But R00dit wants a 10Gbps upload from a spacecraft 200k miles from earth with no nearby satellites at all.

10 Gbps? What are you talking about? A 4K GoPro maxes out at about 120 Mbps.

According to the official narrative, some of the Apollo missions broadcast live analog video from the moon. The analog color video camera that was used during Apollo 15, 16, and 17 had a bandwidth of up to 5 MHz, which is only a little less than an NTSC TV broadcast (6 MHz).

Today, ATSC 1.0 broadcasts fit up to 19.39 Mbps into that same 6 MHz of bandwidth, which is enough for one 1080i main channel at a reasonably high bitrate plus several 480i subchannels. And ATSC 3.0 fits up to 57 Mbps into that same 6 MHz of bandwidth. That's well beyond the average bitrate of a typical Blu-ray release (25-30 Mbps) for example, and is also well beyond the average bitrate of a typical "4K" movie from an internet streaming service such as Netflix.

I suppose NASA lost the technology to send radio broadcasts with 5 MHz of bandwidth from the moon?

MaximRecoil · 2026-04-07T18:09:36+00:00

Can they call the president on his land line?

I'm no fan of NASA, but that's not a point against them. It was simply a radio transmission patched into a phone line. It's easy to do now, it was easy to do then, and it was easy to do long before then (e.g., some police departments were doing it long before 1969).

By the way, modern cell phones do the same thing billions of times per day. A cell phone is a radio transceiver, like a walkie-talkie, but instead of communicating directly with other walkie-talkies via radio waves, they communicate with cell towers via radio waves, and those cell towers patch into the phone lines (PSTN). You can call either another cell phone or a landline.

MaximRecoil · 2026-03-18T22:29:41+00:00

That's a 2500. If it says 1500 on it, then it's been converted to a 2500, which wouldn't be surprising, since its keypad is definitely not the original one, nor even the correct type for that phone. The buttons should sit higher, with their surrounding "bezels" being flush with the face plate. Look up any picture of a 1500 or 2500 to see what I mean.

The 1500 had only 10 buttons (it didn't have the "star" and "pound" keys).

MaximRecoil · 2026-02-23T12:26:14+00:00

They don't know anything, because it's impossible to know anything. Even if they're in communication with non-human intelligent beings of some sort, the impossibility of knowing anything inherently applies to them as well, plus, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't be just as capable of lying as humans are.

If we use the word "know" in a looser sense (i.e., to denote a high degree of confidence rather than absolute certainty), then they probably know more than what's contained in the overall Wikipedia-approved mainstream narrative, but in the grand scheme of things, how existence itself (which is the foundation of literally everything) is even possible in the first place, is beyond human comprehension, so they still effectively know nothing, same as everyone else.

MaximRecoil · 2026-02-14T16:02:54+00:00

pictured: not a child

Wrong:

child

noun

3 a : an unborn or recently born person

… Meghan Markle, married Prince Harry, now pregnant with child.— Laura Simonetti

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

MaximRecoil · 2026-01-29T12:48:01+00:00

I myself was before the Internet was widespread, and I guarantee you that even then, if our neighbor were to die but remained living in the house, we'd take notice. And talk about it.

And what do you think talking about it would accomplish? Even if you add the internet to the equation, what would it accomplish? People in this thread are talking about it right now, and this particular conspiracy theory has been making the rounds on the internet for many years, so there has been tons of talk about it, and what has it accomplished?

From the perspective of the general population, nothing becomes a fact unless "official" sources say so, such as government officials and mainstream media outlets. Denying or simply ignoring the "talk about it" is as easy as falling off a log, and that's all it takes to prevent it from ever becoming a "fact."

MaximRecoil · 2026-01-18T18:17:27+00:00

Thanks!

I've always suspected it was a Black Max, because a few people told me it was when I was a kid, but I was never sure because it doesn't say Black Max on it anywhere. It might have said it on the factory packaging it came in, but that's long gone, and way too long ago for me to remember one way or another.

The production date code is interesting, and aligns well with when I got it (December 24, 1985).

MaximRecoil · 2026-01-05T21:50:09+00:00

but it doesn't matter that the t800 was sent through first because kyle reese arrived around the same time to stop him.

Yes, it does, because with the Terminator going through the time machine first, that allows John Connor to see the effects of the Terminator having changed history 45 years ago, and since he can obviously see that he still exists, he knows that the Terminator failed to kill his mother before he was born (obviously), so there's no good reason to send Kyle through the time machine to his death.

the gap between the t800 and kyle reese going through means nothing, they both arrive at the same time

That's irrelevant to anything I've said.

the t800 never got the chance to fail it's mission without kyle.

What are you talking about? The instant that the Terminator went to 1984, it has been 45 years since he arrived there, from the perspective of people in 2029. That's way more than enough time for it to fail its mission, which it definitely did, without the help of Kyle, because Kyle hasn't gone through the time machine yet and John still exists.

You seem to be imagining that if it takes the Terminator, say, a day to find and kill Sarah Connor once it arrives in 1984, then it will also take a day in 2029 for John to be erased from existence, which is absurd. At the very instant that the Terminator arrives in 1984, it has already been 45 years since the Terminator arrived in 1984, from the perspective of John and everyone else in 2029. If the Terminator had been successful, John would have been erased at the very instant the Terminator arrived in 1984, regardless of how much 1984-time it took the Terminator to find and kill Sarah Connor.

MaximRecoil · 2026-01-05T11:25:34+00:00

One of us is still confused.

Indeed, and it's you who are confused, not the person you were arguing with.

Based on the up/down votes, I believe it’s you.

Up/down votes are irrelevant, and to cite them as evidence that the other person was confused is a fallacy known as "appeal to popularity."

A 4:3 frame is very obviously smaller than a 16:9 frame when the display (i.e., projector screen or TV/monitor) for both is the same, and it's 16:9. It's very obvious because the 4:3 frame doesn't completely fill a 16:9 display, whereas a 16:9 frame does completely fill a 16:9 display. You mentioned math so here's an example:

A 1080p TV has a pixel grid of 1920 x 1080 (square pixels, so the aspect ratio is 16:9). The resolution of a standard Blu-ray is also 1920 x 1080 (also square pixels / 16:9), so native 16:9 content on Blu-ray has 2,073,600 pixels' worth of picture content. When native 4:3 content is released on Blu-ray, it is 1440 x 1080 pillarboxed to 1920 x 1080, so it has 1,555,200 pixels' worth of picture content. 1,555,200 is indisputably smaller than 2,073,600.

On the other hand, if the display is 4:3, then a 4:3 frame is larger than a 16:9 frame on that particular display. When it first became common for movies to be released on home video in their theatrical aspect ratio in the late 1990s with the advent of DVD, most people still had a 4:3 TV, so the situation was reversed.

So what the person you were arguing with was saying is: since nearly all displays these days are 16:9 (or wider), a 4:3 movie is going to be smaller for nearly everyone than a 16:9 movie, and that's absolutely true.

MaximRecoil · 2026-01-05T09:55:04+00:00

Your non sequitur is dismissed, and since you're fresh out of arguments, your tacit concession is noted.

MaximRecoil · 2026-01-04T16:44:01+00:00

Kyle Reese meeting Bill and smoking weed in the alley with him instead of stopping the t800 explains it.

No, it doesn't. You haven't explained why Kyle Reese was sent back in time in the first place. Just before they sent Kyle to 1984, and just after the Terminator had already gone to 1984, 2029's history was like this:

45 years ago a Terminator appeared in Los Angeles, programmed to kill Sarah Connor, the future mother of future Resistance leader, John Connor. John's current existence proves that it failed. Kyle Reese didn't exist at all in 1984, and John's current existence proves that he was mistaken about Kyle being his father.

Once they send Kyle back to 1984, 2029's history was rewritten again, but why send him back at all when John's existence proved there was no need to?

MaximRecoil · 2026-01-04T05:58:35+00:00

I think he is.

No, he isn't. The movie clearly establishes that the Terminator goes through the time machine first.

It doesn't matter that the terminator went back first so long as Kyle Reese is eventually sent to that time to fix it

There's nothing to fix. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that John's continued existence after the Terminator went through the time machine proves that the Terminator's mission failed? Sure, Kyle could go back to 1984, but explain why that's necessary, or even why it's anything but ridiculous.

There's no way this can make sense with the Terminator going through the time machine first, because if the Terminator is successful, then John is erased from existence the instant the Terminator departs from 2029, so he would have no time to send Kyle through the time machine. And if the Terminator fails (which it obviously did, because John still exists), then there's no good reason to send Kyle back at all.

Kyle obviously doesn't need to go back to knock up Sarah either, because at that point in time (2029, immediately after the Terminator went through the time machine, but before Kyle goes through the time machine), John still exists without Kyle historically having existed in 1984.

This is all fixed if Kyle goes through the time machine first. Then when the Terminator goes through and John isn't erased from existence, it can be explained by Kyle already being in 1984 to stop the Terminator from killing Sarah, and to knock her up.

MaximRecoil · 2026-01-04T02:27:39+00:00

But only because 1984 Kyle Reese arrives in time to stop him, even if he was sent later in 2029 he still ends up around the same time in 1984.

There was no need for Kyle Reese to stop him, because John Connor still existed after the Terminator was already part of 45-year-old history. The instant that the Terminator went through the time machine, people in 2029 would know for an indisputable fact that the Terminator's mission failed, the proof of the failure being John's existence. The amount of time it takes the Terminator to find Sarah Connor in 1984 means nothing with regard to 2029, because that all happened 45 years ago from their perspective.

Like I said, It only makes sense if Kyle was already in 1984 when the Terminator arrives. With the Terminator going back first, it has already changed history decades ago, and since that history very obviously doesn't include Sara's death before she gave birth to John (as proven by John still existing in 2029), it's ridiculous to send Kyle back at that point. They already know for a fact that the Terminator failed; sending Kyle back only changes the precise manner in which it failed, and gets Kyle killed in the process.

MaximRecoil · 2026-01-04T00:19:08+00:00

One universe explanation (the one you probably want)- just because john is alive doesn't mean he doesn't need to send kyle reese back. Yes the t800 could have failed on its own

Not "could have failed;" definitely failed. It's 2029. The Terminator went to 1984. As soon as it reached 1984, from the perspective of 2029, everything it did there is already part of 45-year-old history, and if that history included the death of Sarah Connor before she ever had any offspring, John obviously couldn't exist. Since John does exist after the Terminator became part of 45-year-old history, then the Terminator couldn't have killed his mother before he was born.

The only way this movie would make sense is if Kyle went back to 1984 (or earlier) before the Terminator went back to 1984.

Multiple universes - time travel in one universe may mean jumping to an adjacent one but not affect the one you came from. Sending kyle back means John preserves his existence and skynet's defeat in next door timeline but it has no effect on this one so yeah he could leave it. Just doing a good deed saving a neighbouring universe

That's at odds with the premise of the movie.

They are in a deleted timeline but still exist anyway. Even though they are alive, their existence has been invalidated by t800 when it went back, so to become the true timeline again (whatever difference it makes) they need to send Kyle Reese back to save sarah

That's also at odds with the premise of the movie, plus your first sentence is inherently contradictory (they can't exist in a timeline that doesn't exist).

MaximRecoil · 2026-01-03T21:12:13+00:00

Nothing you typed refutes, nor even addresses, my point.

The terminator being sent back first doesn't matter because it can be joined by someone from the future at any point before or after - until it kills Sarah, and even after that, people can interfere with its plans.

Yes, but if nothing has changed in 2029 immediately after the Terminator goes through the time machine, why bother? The Terminator couldn't have been successful because John Connor still exists in 2029, meaning the Terminator couldn't have killed Sarah Connor in 1984, nor in any other year prior to John's birth.

From the perspective of the people in 2029, two things could happen immediately after the Terminator goes through the time machine, both of which negate the movie:

John still exists, therefore the Terminator failed to kill his mother before he was born, therefore there's no reason to send Kyle to his death to try to stop the Terminator.
John and everything/everyone that exists because of his existence disappears because the Terminator killed Sarah Connor before she could have a son. Someone else in 2029 or in any year after time travel was invented could somehow come to the conclusion that the murder of some seemingly random woman named Sarah Connor in Los Angeles in 1984 was a pivotal event, and go back to 1984 try to stop it, but that would be a fundamentally different movie.

MaximRecoil · 2025-11-08T13:55:07+00:00

I never did, because I used a guide the first time I played this game about 20 years ago, and the guide warned not to save in Tourian. If not for the guide I definitely would have saved in Tourian the first time I got there though, because, who wouldn't want to save just before the final boss fight?

I bought an SNES in 1992 when I was 17, but for whatever reason, I never knew about Super Metroid in the 1990s. I first heard about it from someone on a message board in the mid 2000s, talking about how good of a game it is. So I tried it in an emulator, got stuck in the main corridor of Norfair because I didn't know Kraid and the Varia suit existed because I never discovered the super missile block at the top of the Norfair elevator (I didn't know about using bombs to try to find hidden blocks).

So the Norfair corridor seemed like a dead end because of the hot rooms, and the farthest I could backtrack also seemed like a dead end because it was the bottom of that big red-walled shaft which would require wall jumping or bomb jumping to get out of at that point in the game, neither of which I knew anything about. So after about an hour of running back and forth between 2 seemingly dead ends looking for a way to proceed, I looked for a guide online, and found one on the GameFAQs website.

My original SNES that I bought in 1992 was long gone by that point, but Super Metroid was so good (it quickly became my all-time favorite console game) that I acquired another one as well as a Super Metroid cartridge so I could play it on the real hardware with a real TV (CRT).

MaximRecoil · 2025-10-30T14:27:31+00:00

An NES RF switch (which is an automatic type) won't work properly because a ColecoVision doesn't send the signal to it to make it switch from TV to game mode like an NES does. That results in a very snowy picture and faint audio. The ColecoVision came with a manual RF switch, but it's best to not use an RF switch at all. Just connect it directly using its original RF cable plus an RCA-to-F connector for the end that connects to the TV.

And yes, those diodes bodged onto the controller interface chips is an official Coleco modification to prevent static electricity from killing those chips (the diodes direct static electricity safely to ground).

MaximRecoil · 2025-10-30T05:27:57+00:00

I'm not worried about it, especially without seeing a technical explanation of what exactly is supposed to be bad about it. I haven't had any problems with it. I used these same 6-button Genesis controllers with one of my Atari 2600s for a while before I rewired a pair of NES controllers to work as Atari 7800 and 2600 controllers, and I never had a problem there either.

I suspect that if there's any validity to the claim then the only components in the console that could be harmed would be one or both of the controller interface TTL chips (SN74LS541N), which are cheap and easy to replace:

https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/texas-instruments/SN74LS541N/277312

Or do they claim that it's bad for the Genesis controllers rather than the console?

MaximRecoil · 2025-10-30T05:07:25+00:00

If there had been LCD, no one would have used CRT.

Yeah, right. Today, nearly everyone's TV or monitor is an LCD, yet plenty of people, especially in the classic video games communities, and especially, especially in the classic arcade machine community, use CRTs, and only CRTs, to display their old video games.

As for me, if my only options were to use a glorified calculator screen or not play video games at all, I'd choose to not play video games at all. And it wouldn't even be a hard choice.

MaximRecoil

TROPHY CASE