Why do some people seem so obsessed with that?
If cutscenes are edited out because they are boring, why stop there? Let's also cut all the parts of the run that are boring. Let's make a 2-minute cut for those who don't want to watch a 20-minute run, with just the juiciest bits left in.
No, just no.
1. Ratings could factor in the mean values of each voter's personal rating history and the amount of movies watched (you can see these bits of statistics right now in our forum profiles under the "How this user rates movies"). User A who watches and rates a lot of movies and assigns to them the full spectrum of votes from 0 to 10 is expected to have a better idea of a movie's merits than user B who only votes on a few selected movies and tends towards giving out 10/10 indiscriminately. This doesn't mean that user B's 10/10 vote will drag the rating down as if it were, say, 5/5, but it does mean this vote will be more easily offset by a lower vote when calculating the average.
If this were implemented and public knowledge, it would be trivial to abuse: Just give 10/10 to a dozen of movies you like, and 0/0 to a dozen random movies. You have a couple of dozen rates (more than enough to get a full weight) and a full spread. In fact, this makes it only worse because now some innocent movies are being thrown some zeros they don't deserve, just to abuse the system.
(If an even more elaborate algorithm were implemented, which checks not only the range of ratings, but also their distribution, then it's probably enough to give some 5/5 ratings to a dozen of random movies more.)
rog wrote:
Before anything is done with #1, rating needs to be made far less of a hassle. As is, i don't even bother rating anything if it it's not really great, because it just requires way too much effort (and goddamn loading 2 extra pages can take forever sometimes).
Could you be a bit more specific what exactly makes the current design so much of a "hassle"?
When you wrote that post, you certainly had to load like a half dozen pages total. If your internet connection is so poor that you can't load a couple of pages, I think the problem is in your end.
Putting the rating drop-down menus in the movie's main info box would only save clicking one link, and would clutter the already-cramped info box even more than it is. (And it would be useless clutter in the vast majority of cases because 99% of the time you just watch the info box, you don't rate.)
I think there's a much surer way of having it work even for color-blind people, and that's by making it more based on contrast than on color.
In other words, rather than have eg. red and green text (which is by far the worst possible choice because AFAIK red-green-blindness is the most common one), it should be something like yellow and black text (or at the very least dark blue). There's no way for anybody to confuse those two for the simple reason that they are at almost opposite ends of the contrast scale.
That's your prerogative, but it's just not how it works. We do not compete with nor compare to unassisted runs, and accolades are granted based on the run's own merits.
(Why can't it be thought the other way around? In other words, rather than the marvel of the TAS being diminished by the unassisted run being close to it, instead the marvel of the unassisted run is greatly enhanced by the runner having the skill to almost match the tool-assisted version? Would you say that, for example, the SMB1 TAS sucks because it's just a few seconds faster than the unassisted record? Or would you say that the unassisted record being just a few seconds slower is a testament of the skill of the speedrunner?)
Like, literally everything you said is not just not true, but the opposite is.
I still maintain my hypothesis that nfq is just a poe.
Anyways, laptop or desktop, it depends on what you want to do with it. Laptops are not very good gaming platforms. While they have improved quite a lot, there's still a reason why desktop graphics cards look like miniature nuclear power plants:
CPUs aren't much behind that either:
In a laptop such things have much higher requirements in terms of low energy consumption and heat production, which inevitably means that corners need to be cut, which means lower framerates.
The screenshot should be of Young Link (to all appearances) staring at Zelda's breasts whenever she opens a door in the escape from the tower.
He's looking at her face.
Anyways, I like the fact that it's not just the author fooling around (because the joke would get old pretty quickly), but it actually has a reason: It's faster that way.
I also like how the game technically allows playing the child Link in the adult sections (and I'm assuming vice-versa is also possible). Tells something about the internal structure of the program, and how independent the playable character code is from the level code. (It's also telling that the animations that are clearly designed for adult Link don't break even though the mesh model is that of child Link.)
hagrid65 wrote:
I don't know what all these people talking about "TAS of the year" are going on about -- (a) it only took him a week, so hardly a labour of love, (b) no new tricks: everything in it is well-known by the community (c) it's just the same route as the any% console run with one or two TAS-only or best-avoided-on-console parts like mido skip (which, as I said, are well-known tricks anyway). It's only 2 minutes faster than the any% console record! Or ten percent if you like -- but there are lots of TASes here which beat the fastest human time by a far larger percentage.
We do not compete with nor compare to unassisted runs (other than having the rule that a TAS should be faster), especially when evaluating the quality of the TAS and deciding if it deserves accolades. The greatness of a TAS is not affected by how great the unassisted equivalent might be. That's inconsequential.
People can vote each run the way they feel like, but in this particular case it is rather obvious, that most votes are not based on quality of the movie, but all the trouble surrounding it. The rating system should not be abused for some kind of protest, which clearly happened here.
So people can vote the way they feel like, but when they express extreme dissatisfaction it becomes abuse?
No. People are free to vote whatever they like, but the rating system should not be used to protest site politics and judging decisions. The forums should be used for that, not the rating system.
I believe that you understand the distinction but are nitpicking just because.
Wait wait wait. So now we're only supposed to watch and rate a run if we think in advance that we will rate it highly?
It's not like this is the first run of OoT ever published. How many have there been already? How likely is it that if you did not like the previous one at all, that you will like this one? And how likely is it that if you have watched the first 10 minutes of this run, the other 2 hours will be better?
If one really wants to appreciate a very long TAS, the best way of doing that is to play the game through, and watch the TAS afterwards. All the tricks and shortcuts start being even more awesome, and often things that make little sense to someone who hasn't played the game do.
(As an example of the latter, if you have never played Super Metroid, then the mechanic of opening doors makes little sense in the TAS. It may feel like the TAS is wasting big ammo and time to open certain doors. However, when one has played the game then one knows that that kind of ammo is actually required for those doors.)
I'd give this a 0.1 in entertainment; watching this TAS reminded me of several unpleasant childhood memories. I found this situation to be highly unentertaining. This applies to the run itself, as there are no sections in it that do not remind me of those unpleasant childhood memories.
And how is it the fault of the author that the run reminds you of "unpleasant childhood memories"? Why would you rate the run based on outside factors?
Given the controversy surrounding this run, and the fact that it was forced to break a rule to be published (so badly, in fact, that the rule was changed mid-voting to suddenly make the run legal), I found this situation to be highly unentertaining. This applies to the run itself, as there are no sections in it that do not remind me of the rule it broke to be published.
So you are basically saying that you used the entertainment rating to express your protest against the run being published, rather than judging it based solely on its own merits, without letting site politics color your opinion.
While you are of course entitled to do so, please reconsider your attitude. The rating system was not created for this kind of thing. If you want to protest, please do it on the forum, rather than vandalizing someone's ratings.
While it's appalling that not all people will rate a run in a serious and civil manner, and some people may abuse the system as some form of vandalism or spiteful message, that's just something we have to live with and accept when we allow the public to submit ratings. Most ratings will be done seriously and with thought, but inevitably some of them won't. Moreover, it's even possible that those are his true feelings, even though they are in drastic contrast with the average.
We cannot just start censoring ratings we don't like. People are entitled to their opinions, and even if there's suspicion of vandalism, it would be up to someone to determine it as such, which would be quite subjective and controversial.
(That being said, IIRC the underlying system supports assigning weights to people's ratings so that if someone consistently gives extreme ratings in drastic contradiction with the average, his/her impact on the average can be minimized. I don't know how much the admins resort to this.)
Why don't you even once surprise us all and link us to something that actually debunks conspiracy theories rather than advances them? That would certainly be different. Currently you are SO predictable that it's not even funny anymore.
The viewer doesn't need to know who made the encode. Presenting unnecessary information is undesirable.
A moviegoer doesn't need to know who edited a film. That doesn't mean the film editor doesn't deserve having his name in the end credits. I'd say the situation is pretty comparable.
You could argue that showing a huge encoder logo at the beginning of the video in a very "in your face" manner is ego-boosting, and a subtler approach could be better, but that's different from outright removing the right for an encoder to have credits.
Yes, one revolution per day. But one revolution per day on the surface is ~40.000km/day, while one revolution high up in the atmosphere is quite a bit faster.
When the object drops down, the horizontal velocity will be slowed by the atmosphere (assuming no wind etc), but it'll remain greater than the horizontal velocity on the ground, thus traveling further than the guy on the surface.
The ability to extract the core of the message from other people's not-so-well-expressed-but-valid ideas is an important ability not only for your professional life but your life as a whole.
The burden of being understood properly is on the writer, not the reader. If you want people to understand what you mean, it's your responsibility to express yourself in such a way that minimizes misunderstandings.
It doesn't matter if you use cursewords with a friend. The society does not work like that. If you can't comprehend that simple fact, then it's you who should revise how you should interact with others. "You should understand what I mean, not what I'm saying" just doesn't work in real life. If you express yourself poorly, people are going to understand you poorly.
(Of course this is just BS. You were most probably just childishly trolling, and now you are trying to take it back without actually admitting to any wrongdoing.)
So, as a thought experiment consider that we have an observer at the Equator that sees an object at rest at a height h directly above him.
At rest compared to what? Do you mean stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth?
But if it's stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth, that means that it's actually orbiting the Earth (at a speed of one revolution per day). In other words, it's moving along with the Earth. This lateral movement does not stop when the object is let go. Thus it will stay over that same point as it falls down.
(Of course the atmosphere can mess things up a lot.)
An interesting question is what happens due to frame-dragging (or whether it has any effect at all).
the fact that i got some people easily offended for questioning the show's credibilty
No, you offended people because you used offensive adjectives such as "retarded" and "stupid", which was totally uncalled for. Do you honestly think you wouldn't get a defensive attitude when you call someone's hobby by those derogatory names?
CPUs aren't much behind that either:
In a laptop such things have much higher requirements in terms of low energy consumption and heat production, which inevitably means that corners need to be cut, which means lower framerates.
