https://www.youtube.com/@elecblush Musician, Gamer, IT specialist

  • 13 Posts
  • 49 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 12th, 2023

help-circle
  • Electricblush@lemmy.worldtoSynthesizers@lemm.eeTE OP-XY
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Most TE products are definitely extremely priced. I’m not getting pissed about it though. There is obviously a market for them and there is little in direct competition when it comes to size/form factor + feature set.

    That being said, not worth it for me. Would rather buy one of my big dream synths for that price.

    I have the Ep133 and while it has its quirks and limits, it’s a fun device at a lot more reasonable price.


  • I think the main reason is that StarCraft sprites were based on 3d models so either they can be made higher definition by working from the original assets or they simply upscale better.

    Wc1 and 2 mainly uses hand drawn pixel art sprites, and it looks like they have gone with the “crude upscale + retouch” approach. Makes them look like the super scale filters lots of people used on emulators back in the day.

    Honestly I think original art and a solid crt filter is the way to go with old Pixel classics. But i know this is a divisive position.





















  • I sort of answered this somewhere else but i will reiterate.

    Using this metric you are sort of assuming all trips are equal. No matter how short, or long you are assuming the base danger is the same. This means that driving 100 meters is just as dangerous as driving for a whole day. (See what the problem is?)

    And if we look at this premise in isolation: “Am i going to die on this trip”? If the trip is 100m, then a plane is probably out of the question either way. And if the trip is to a different country… then hey, look at that, the sources you cited come into relevance (where pr distance a plane is safer) and you would have to calculate the danger of completing that specific trip in a car VS flying that distance with a plane.

    You are generalizing on terms that make no sense, since “total number of trips” in cars include all manner of different scenarios of some times extremely varying degree of danger. So in order to have data that is statistically relevant and in any form comparable you have to choose a different metric.

    So to answer the question again “Am i going to die on this trip?” or to extrapolate “should i drive or fly on this trip”, if you cant use generic statistics, the answer will be “it depends. You have to calculate danger for the trip specifically”.


  • I honestly think you are showing a fundamental lack of understanding of statistics.

    “Per trip” is a horribly poor metric. Because there is a fundamental difference between a trip down to the store, or a cross country trip, even with a car. Also it would be extremely dependent on where you are going, where you live etc. etc.

    For the discussion to have any meaning you have to abstract it to a metric that makes sense for all people, or else you would have to also figure in where you usually travel, how good a driver you are etc etc etc.

    At that point its a completely meaningless semantics exercise because for instance taking a plane to work is not realy valid for me since i live in the same city as i work… Or lets do it the other way around: If i need to go to Spain tomorrow, its safer for me to fly then to drive there. (This is based on your own sources)