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.

No obviously the forces of Ukraine would be scared once he rode in on his unicorn.

Yes. I was about to post “time traveling Elon musk gets the idea for hyperlopp” :D

Virtual environments are really not viable for music production. Latency and other inconsistensies makes it a no-go.

High level Music production requires very low audio and input latency in addition to consistent and 100% accurate sound reproduction.

A virtual environment is a wildcard here that I at least would not bother trying to make work. (Not saying it can’t be done, just saying it would potentially be a big headache and extremely conditioned on spesific hardware, drivers and configuration settings.)

I mean. This is probably just to cover their own asses. Since they are more likely to be held accountable or something that can be downloaded through their platform then a random mod of the internet.

A few of us still remembers option 3) Regulation And also 4) Properly working anti-trust laws.

Important to look as good as possible on the end of the year report…

… That was ai generated right?

Or its compatible with joycons but you cannot connect them to the sides (new cons or constantly connected controls?)

The hybrid device route was so successful I doubt they will abandon it.

I think the downvote from someone not bothered enough to say “well duh” but also bothered enough to signal their annoyance…

Wow… can we focus on the actual outrageous and horrible things this man did… Like commit fellonies for instance.

I mean he has done and said so much actual fucked up shit, it already waters down the impact, no need to contribute to it being diluted further…

You only spray poop on someone once.

Then you get told, and never do it again.

If you are traveling across the Atlantic to get from Los Angeles to New York i would argue that you are traveling the wrong way…

Yes, and?

The point of distance is to take it into aggregate, for both modes of transport.

This is in fact the exact point i am making.

Per trip measurement implies that every trip (regardles of time or distance traveled) has equal danger.

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)

I would think real statistics would be more interesting then peoples emotions when talking about what is actually dangerous.

Very interesting 🤔

And your point about metrics is pretty spot on.

In the end it becomes an exercise in trying to find the metric that best supports your argument.

We have also been jumping around a bit on geographical limitations. And in for instance Scandinavia, the original premise might be closer to real due to better road safety.

I think implying some sort of myth or ruse is missing the mark hard on this subject.

From your own source:

Since 1997, the number of fatal air accidents has been no more than 1 for every 2,000,000,000 person-miles[c] flown,[citation needed] and thus is one of the safest modes of transportation when measured by distance traveled.

So I guess this is the point you are trying to make?

Sweden , a country of 10 million, we have about 150 people killed per year from car accidents

Yes, and how many die every year from plane crashes in sweden?

If we take a relatively big plane (450 passengers) as an example. One has to fall out of the sky every 3. Years to match the car accident number…

3186 deaths over 10 years VS 1.19 million every year.

(This is globally. Sweden and Norway(where i live) will naturally have pretty radically lower numbers then globally when it comes to road safety.)

But look at that air travel number again: 3186. Over 10 years. Globally. Commercial Air travel is fucking safe. Its horrible for the climate. But its safe.

Whatever way you slice those numbers it comes up air travel i safer. Feel free to find actual statistics that contradict me. :)