This was the big one for me too. The juxtaposed healthy versus unhealthy lungs resemble an uncooked chicken versus a roast chicken which was left in the oven for 30 minutes more than necessary.
The antismoking PSA that made the strongest impression on me, by far, was the one that showed a grandfather encouraging a baby to take a step. Eventually, the baby starts walking, and rushes over to the grandfather.
And through the grandfather, who fades to translucency.
It wasn't just me; that PSA made enough of a splash that it was called out on Friends.
I've tried to find that PSA in the past, but with no success. Once I asked a friend if they could find it, and the response was "Oh, I know exactly the one you're talking about. I won't help you look for it. I hate that commercial and I don't want to see it again."
I note that the second comment is "This commercial was what made my father stop smoking." It's interesting to think about the balance between disturbing the smoking audience so strongly that they stop, and disturbing the non-smoking audience so strongly that they complain about being exposed to your traumatic imagery and imperil your funding.
There have been some Oceanic anti-speeding ads that had the same effect on people, apparently. There's one where time freezes right before a collision and the person at fault apologizes for the little boy he's about to murder. There's one where the driver is talking to the ghost of his friend who died in a car crash. There's one where the grim reaper spins a roulette wheel every time a driver makes a mistake at an intersection. There was one where they rewind time, nudge the speedometer slightly lower, and resume normal time, and a fatal accident (pedestrian hit by car) turns into a bruised leg.
I remember triying it a few years ago when the online version was released. The problem is that a lot of modern shorcuts are mising, like click on an enemy unit to atack instead of pressing A and then clicking on it. It was fantastic when it was released. Perhaps someone can add all those small tweaks and make an updated version.
Was going to stroll down memory lane, and play it on a retro website. Sadly, Firefox is broken in this regard (what a shocker), with a broken UI that maps escape to 'exit pointer lock' or 'exit fullscreen'. Esc is used to bypass mega-long intros, and scenes between play, and other things of course.
There's no way to change the esc key to another key, which is just silly. Which makes Firefox silly.
I mean, if you have any 32-bit Windows, you can run it. You just have to launch it directly from the DOS command line, and you need to install an IPX->TCP/IP wrapper (or Kali/something similar) for multiplayer. I was playing Dune on my Windows XP box well into the 00s and NTVDM supported it fine.
But yeah, DOSbox is probably a better option these days.
It needs NTVDM/VM86 (the 16-bit wrapper in WoW) to run DOS code. Since Microsoft didn't want to code up an emulator (you can't run 16-bit code natively in long mode) to support 80s/early 90s code, it was just dropped with the 64-bit transition.
'Original glory' could be defined as "on original hardware on a screen where the graphics looks as they're supposed to instead of being stretched and changed in all sorts of ways"
Playing at 1600x1200 with a point scaler and aspect correction enabled gives you a pixel-perfect representation of the original graphics.
If you had a lower-quality CRT back in the day, so you remember fuzzier pixel boundaries, a CRT emulation GLSL filter will give you an extremely accurate recreation of that.
DOSBox-Staging now defaults everything to proper aspect-corrected settings and includes a good selection of CRT emulation filters: https://dosbox-staging.github.io/
I (well, my parents) had a monitor that could do 1600x1200 in IIRC 1994 or ‘95. By 2001 or so I’d grabbed a pair of CRTs for $50 each (used) that could do 2650x1920.
This is why lots of us were slow to adopt flat screens: they were a big step backwards in pixel density for quite a while (plus typical picture quality was shit on them until the late ‘00s or so, resolution aside)
[edit] just providing context for those who weren’t there and are used to retro gaming being stuff that displayed on CRT TVs.
You're misunderstanding. Almost all major DOS games right up until about the mid-90s used a single common screen resolution of 320x200. When improvements in display tech allowed for more capable graphics cards, the priority was always for more color depth, not higher resolution. So the large majority of games were 320x200@2bpp (4 colors) with CGA, then 320x200@4bpp (16 colors) with EGA, then 320x200@8bpp (256 colors) for VGA. [1]
CRTs themselves have no concept of pixels or pixel density -- they're analogue devices where the primary limiting factor is the refresh rates supported by the hardware -- so the screen resolution in pixels is entirely a function of the display hardware generating the video. Almost all CRTs were 4:3, so typically you'd have a 320x200 game being displayed at a physical 4:3 resolution on the monitor. This means that in most cases, the pixels were not square, but rather each pixel was slightly portrait-orientation, having its own aspect ratio of 5:6. Most games artists took this into account, so if they wanted to draw a square that was 30 pixels across, they'd make it 25 pixels tall.
So the point of the 1600x1200 number is that this is the lowest resolution at which a display with square pixels can replicate the exact aspect ratio of both the screen and the pixels used in those classic games. Note that the aspect ratio of the pixels is 5:6 -- 5 is a prime number, so you can't reduce the ratio further. So if you turn each pixel in the original 320x200 screen into a grid of 5 by 6 square pixels, you get 1600x1200.
So only 1600x1200 (or an exact multiple) can provide a pixel-perfect rendering of the graphics from games from that era. Add a filter that emulates some of the visual artifacts from CRTs of the era -- scanlines, bloom, etc. -- and you're getting a pretty exact recreation of the experience you'd have had playing games in the DOS era. [2]
----
[1] SVGA games at higher resolutions started becoming more common around 1994/95, but within a couple of years after that, Windows began to displace DOS as the primary target platform for PC games, leaving the vast majority of DOS games in the 320x200 camp. There were some outliers that used e.g. EGA's 640x350 mode, or otherwise supported higher resolutions at the expense of color depth (SimCity is a major example that comes to mind, along with a few games that used 320x200 but expected square pixels (producing a 16:10 screen aspect) but these are exceptions rather than the rule.
[2] At least visually. There are a lot of other sensory elements of classic gaming that remain entirely absent with modern hardware -- the static charge on the glass of the CRT monitor, the smell of air passing over the hot electronics in the PC, the mechanical sounds of reading data from floppy and hard disks, etc.
Right back at you with the citation needed. Humanoid is not a taxonomic term anymore. All Homo are humans. Never said modern, which it obviously isn't.
> Although some scientists equate the term "humans" with all members of the genus Homo, in common usage it generally refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant member.
There's no citation for that claim and it would be unlikely for there to be one.
It's just some dude's personal impression about a subjective matter (a word in transition), and carries no more weight than any other comment being made here.
A more meaningful source would be a usage guide like Garner's Modern English.
Actually, it is cited. The fragment you quoted is from the lede, which is supposed to summarize the rest of the material. So if you read on to the section "Etymology and definition", you find that the same claim is cited to Merriam Webster.
As it happens, this citation is useless, because it doesn't support the claim. Basically, I think it's fraudulent to cite that claim to that MW article.
I feel like this is peak HN pedantry, but it seems like there's some controversy amongst anthropologists these days as how to sort of colloquially define human; I've heard some say that any species in the genus homo should qualify.
Perhaps my mind is so open that it's in danger of falling out, but when people say that that's so easy to define and then don't do so, I get really confused. I'm like, have you ever seen a dude who looks like a lady? It's a question that's bedeviled sports for a long time actually - in the 60's the Olympics required "nude parades" to check that competitors were in fact women, but obviously that had some problems. I believe they eventually settled on some sort of hormone ratio as the definition.
In the classical Olympics, as in all Greek athletic competitions, all competitors were required to be nude during the events. You can't compete in clothes.
I mean, who actually cares about things like chafing, sunburns, or the awkward stares of spectators? Let's all just embrace our inner Greek and strip down for the 100-meter dash.
HN really isn't the place for this conversation, but if we ever found a human whose biological sex was ambiguous using a simple checklist with maybe three tests in it, that would be a first. Woman and man are complex, female and male are not. Yes, this includes all known intersex conditions. No, there's no significant disagreement about those criteria.
Funny, I think HN is the ideal place for this conversation, though it's a bit weird to get there on this thread. But it's a subject of fascination for me personally, and it's a shame that it's taken on weird political dimensions.
I was under the impression that Caster Semenya tends to confound simple categorization like you suggest.
> Sex assignment is the discernment of an infant's sex, usually at birth.
The question is not whether you can briefly look between someone's legs and determine their sex. We know (per the article) that this can fail as much as 0.05% of the time.
The question was what is Caster Semenya's biological sex: the answer is male. This is, in fact, clear.
"Humanoid" refers to anything with a human body morphology (i.e., bipedal, two legs, two arms, head). That can be actual humans, human-looking robots, bipedal aliens with bilateral symmetry, or even Barbie dolls I suppose.
Anecdotally, I had access to my family's car on a pretty regular basis unless my mom had specific needs for it. I was a hardcore introvert and took advantage of that way less than I could have, but it was explicitly available.
If the page content included the content that was supposed to be behind paywall, but you didn't agree to any ToS because you never had seen the paywall, how far in the forest does the pained cry of IP lawyer carry?
I don't know if I want to see the content or not until I request the page.
What if I go on youtube, but some scammer replaced it with a page that says "your computer is hacked, send BTC to enable youtube, go to scamwebsite.com". My safe browsing add-on should be able to block the content of scamwebsite.com, or even block this message completely if the maintainers act more quickly than youtube
To argue "you visited youtube.com and the scammer has the right to show you the scam message" is not logical, so why should "you visited youtube.com and Google has the right to show you advertisements" hold? You only argued from the act of visiting the website and it costing someone money. It costs the scammer money to serve the requests from billions of people hitting the website, that doesn't change from the perspective of your argument.
A closely related way to think about this is that with control comes liability for damages.
If the content provider wants to argue they deserve control over What calculations and things my computer does, then they ought be liable for any crashes or scams or exploits that come from that.
I find there's a lot of frustrating internet crap that boils down to someone demanding power without responsibility.
You've invented a scenario that doesn't even make glancing contact with reality in order to rationalize your point of view. I'm actually on your side in this argument but not for this totally contrived reason.
The scenario is very real. Ad networks don't review ad content well enough, so scams and other malicious content are sometimes shown to users. This is also why the FBI recommends using an ad blocker [1]. Pretty embarrassing for Google that a public service announcement like this was needed.
But then they have that annoying rule about saying a "zero" when there is a 0 for a magnitude between non-zero digits, for example 108 is one-hundred-zero-eight.
Yeah that is weird. Because usually a "十" would mark the ten-count anyway, so saying a single digit could only be the ones-count, but they interpret it then differently to mean 80, even if you do not say "十". To me this is not logical and is unintuitive.
