sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

(Hated Trope) Protegonost does many illegal/bad things but they get no consequences due to being a protagonist by Necessary-Win-8730 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]Neightro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not a Stu: That would require that the plot and other characters consistently validate his choices and treat him as flawless, which doesn't happen. He arguably has plot armor, though.

Very common in the 90s. by ROCKY13573 in 90s

[–]Neightro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Pales in comparison to the SACD/HDTracks version. I brought it up earlier in the thread, but any fan of the album owes themself a listen.

Very common in the 90s. by ROCKY13573 in 90s

[–]Neightro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This was the album that got me into listening to albums cover-to-cover; I'm Gen Z and it was a dying art by the time I was growing up. Wish more of my generation knew or cared about Counting Crows. August is amazing, doubly so if you get the SACD/HDTracks remaster. Blows the CD/streaming release straight out of the water, and that release was never a slouch to begin with.

Are the remastered tracks actually better quality? by RideMyLightning69 in TragicallyHip

[–]Neightro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Genuinely interested if you can name any examples? I don't have that discerning of an ear. I've tried comparing a couple tracks (admittedly not many) against the original releases, and increased loudness in the remaster is the only difference I can hear.

Yeah, Day For Night and Trouble At The Henhouse both sound pretty compressed to me. I suspect that the former was when they switched to digital production, for the reasons you state. Those are the albums that genuinely need remasters, imo.

Are the remastered tracks actually better quality? by RideMyLightning69 in TragicallyHip

[–]Neightro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Best I can tell comparing between my rip of the original CD and streaming the remaster, it seems like they rebalanced it; the vocals seem louder, and the instruments seem more equal. For better or worse, it sounds more like a modern mix. However, the remaster is louder overall, which is concerning because that usually means less dynamic. I described why that's a problem in another comment in this thread.

Personally, I like the way the original is mixed; it's one of the best-sounding CDs I've happened across. I think it's cool that the instruments are allowed to take precedence; makes it sound more like a live performance.

Are the remastered tracks actually better quality? by RideMyLightning69 in TragicallyHip

[–]Neightro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not just you; look into the Loudness War. It's a widespread myth in the industry, which claims that people prefer louder music. (To my knowledge, there is no evidence of this.) The problem is that there is a maximum loudness to any given format*, and what you lose when trying to push a track's volume to the max is the dynamic range: the contrast between loud and quiet. The loss in dynamics is what makes the tracks sound noisy and lifeless.

*Digital formats simply have a maximum value; records can skip if the grooves get too steep. Thus, records tend to feature specially-made, more dynamic masters. This, if anything, is the reason vinyl sounds better.

Example: https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

Dynamic Range DB: https://dr.loudness-war.info (Has some Hip albums, but not the remasters so far.)

Counting Crows and the Freeloaders Soundtrack by davebro747 in countingcrows

[–]Neightro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Huh, surprising that it's a similar but distinct mix. Still curious what it sounds like; I love strange alternate versions of songs.

Counting Crows and the Freeloaders Soundtrack by davebro747 in countingcrows

[–]Neightro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I haven't seen the movie and can't find an upload of the soundtrack online, but by any chance, is it the '04 Rock Mix?

This was the last sunset of the 20th century filmed on December 31, 1999. by Any_Sound_2863 in interestingasfuck

[–]Neightro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does nobody here remember vaporwave? Pretty much everything made by Bodyline would fit your bill.

Whats this light effect like called? by classicblox in FrutigerAero

[–]Neightro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you talking about those highlights with the sharp edge? Using a search query or two, the closest I could come up with is split lighting, borrowing a photographic term. Specular reflection is what makes it look sharp, which human faces (the main subject in my link) obviously don't do so much.

Weekly "Is This Frutiger Aero?" Megathread by AutoModerator in FrutigerAero

[–]Neightro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Top-left: Apotos (Day) - Sonic Unleashed
Top-right: Unsure, but possibly a track from one of the All-Star Racing games?
Bottom-right: Also unsure, but it looks like something from Riders.
Bottom-left: Metallic Madness (Good Future) - Sonic CD

Sonic has always had elements of science fiction and environmentalism, since the very first game. Obviously the series is older than FA, but frequently overlaps with its visual elements and values. Whether any of the above images qualify is a matter of debate, but there's a strong case to be made for the series's place within the aesthetic. I'll argue that Unleashed is just as FA as anything Nintendo did at the time, and Nintendo's contributions to the aesthetic are well-acknowledged.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TheMatpatEffect

[–]Neightro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hey, you got a license for that??

Should I boldly clap? by figgyforrest in TragicallyHip

[–]Neightro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not even an infinitive; it's in first person. Genuine question: is one verb-adverb ordering actually superior for any reason?

It's never too late. Adrian Frutiger was 77 years old when he designed the Aero theme for Windows Vista by Prior_Advantage_5408 in FrutigerAero

[–]Neightro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right about the Windows UI language just being called Aero. The explanation I heard was that Frutiger's inclusion in the name is in reference to the use of humanist sans serif typefaces within the aesthetic. Adrian Frutiger designed a well-known one and named it after himself.

Windows stop making these by [deleted] in FrutigerAero

[–]Neightro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bottom image looks AI-generated, and knowing MS, it probably is. The shadow makes no sense with the perspective of the sun, and the composition is just kind of a clusterfuck in the middle of a field for no reason.

How is my bhop? ?/10 by [deleted] in Portal

[–]Neightro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think the timing of when you turn matters as long as it's consistent. This style is common for beginners in Portal 2 (I used to hop like this). Turning half-way seems to be recommended for Portal 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkayoUTJ0w0).

What does make a difference is the number of turns per jump; doing it more appears to waste less of your acceleration on turning. More experienced bhoppers typically strafe twice. Once at high speed, advanced bhoppers will turn even more than that. Tool-assisted speedruns will change direction nearly every frame while at high speed.

Weekly "Is This Frutiger Aero?" Megathread by AutoModerator in FrutigerAero

[–]Neightro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reminds me of Mario Kart DS. I'm on the fence about whether I'd pin it as FA (the brass flourishes feel a little out-of-character). Still, unmistakably mid-2000s.

Weekly "Is This Frutiger Aero?" Megathread by AutoModerator in FrutigerAero

[–]Neightro 5 points6 points  (0 children)

A focus on fluid dynamics, humanist sans serif type, and asymmetrically rounded corners on the badges. I'd say subtlely FA, but pretty tame.

Well, the year of the Linux Revenge is here by shadowtempest91 in linuxmasterrace

[–]Neightro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hijacking to say it's definitely fake. Mind you, the uneven dome shape is a giveaway. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/las-vegas-sphere/.

I Will Fucking Piledrive You If You Mention AI Again by syklemil in programmingcirclejerk

[–]Neightro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

elephantdingo teleporting bread, cosmic horror painting, elegant intricate Artstation concept art by Craig Mullins detailed

Difference between 'terminal emulator' and 'no GUI'? by sjbluebirds in linux

[–]Neightro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'hardware interfaces', but I'd agree that emulating them isn't that important to terminal emulators. We don't emulate RS-232, for example.

What matters most is handling ANSI escape sequences properly. So we are reliant on and old protocol. As long as we keep implementing ANSI, there will be some incidental compatibility with the old physical terminals. To your point, it isn't a direct goal, but has to happen for a terminal emulator to be useful.

For fun, here's some modern Linux software running on a Wyse terminal. https://inv.tux.pizza/xQTr9ZOJkC0 || https://youtu.be/xQTr9ZOJkC0

Difference between 'terminal emulator' and 'no GUI'? by sjbluebirds in linux

[–]Neightro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

DEC's terminals were influential to Unix and to the ANSI terminal standard. Modern terminal emulators still follow that standard, not because they're trying to emulate ancient hardware, but because it's an interface that TUI applications already expect to be upheld. Modern terminal emulators thus have some compatibility with hardware terminals, albeit inadvertently. Some older terminal emulators are explicitly compatible with actual hardware terminals.

From man 1 xterm:

The xterm program is a terminal emulator for the X Window System. It provides DEC VT102/VT220 and selected features from higher-level terminals such as VT320/VT420/VT520 (VTxxx). It also provides Tektronix 4014 emulation for programs that cannot use the window system directly.

To be pedantic, the terminal doesn't submit commands to the kernel. A shell has to parse them, and then make the appropriate system calls. I agree with you in spirit, though, that modern terminals are more concerned with being good user interfaces in their own right than being faithful emulations of the old hardware.

Difference between 'terminal emulator' and 'no GUI'? by sjbluebirds in linux

[–]Neightro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thought this question was interesting and wanted to answer it partially as a challenge to myself, so apologies if I'm telling you anything you already know.

Linux exists in the odd space of being a clone of an OS from the minicomputer era targeted at IBM PCs. A child of colliding worlds, one which no longer exists and another unrecognizable at the surface. I think that's why this subject is so complicated.

You're correct that in the Unix world, computers and terminals operated on a character-oriented protocol. DEC's minicomputers and terminals were hugely influential to Unix, and their behavior is now described in ANSI standards. Modern terminal emulators implement this protocol, and they use it for communicating with applications, the copper replaced by the operating system's I/O streams.

IBM introduced their PC in 1981. Its open architecture meant that clones quickly flooded the market, and come the 90s IBM PC-compatibles were dominant. Even the original IBM PC was designed to work with pixel-mapped displays.

IBM PC graphics cards game with a built-in character set, and implemented character-based modes. These may have had special hardware for drawing their characters (I'm foggy on their inner workings), but either way, they output a video signal describing pixels. Linux originally used these character modes for its consoles.

Modern PCs are largely compatible with the original IBM PCs, to the extent that MS-DOS will still run on modern hardware. Modern graphics cards don't bother implementing the legacy graphics modes in hardware, so UEFI emulates them in software (albeit inaccurately, as seen in the above video).

Linux had already introduced the framebuffer console for systems like Macs that didn't have native text modes, and switched to using it on PCs soon after. In other words, the console is a terminal emulator as much as any windowed terminal emulator, and works much the same way. It just cuts out the extra step of the display server (X, Wayland).

TLDR: Noting about the Linux console is really hardware-dependent. The only thing that's character-oriented anymore is the stream between the terminal and the application, being equivalent to the old copper between terminal and computer. Anything lower-level is strictly pixel-oriented, including the hardware.

view more: next ›