DefederateLemmyMl

  • Gen𝕏
  • Engineer ⚙
  • Techie 💻
  • Linux user 🐧
  • Ukraine supporter 🇺🇦
  • Pro science 💉
  • Dutch speaker
  • 2 Posts
  • 327 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 8th, 2023

help-circle

  • First of all, there really isn’t all that much story to the original Doom. There are a couple of paragraphs in a readme.txt file tucked away in the installation folder, and an ending screen after each episode… but that’s basically it.

    As I understood it, Doom 2016 is a re-imagining of Doom, so the universes are not canonically linked. Kinda like how The Thing From Another World (1956), which takes place in Alaska, isn’t canonically linked with The Thing (1982) which takes place on Antarctica.


  • The original DOS version of Doom runs at 35fps, exactly half of the 70Hz refresh rate of 320x200 VGA mode. I thought it felt really smooth back in the day, but it does feel weird and stuttery on modern systems when played through Dosbox. I get used to it after a bit, but still.

    Fortunately as Doom is open source, there are many enhanced Doom ports that lift this 35fps limit and allow it to run on modern machines without emulation. I usually play in GZDoom which can run at the max refresh rate of my monitor (144Hz), so it feels silky smooth.










  • if it’s good enough for the majority of historians

    It isn’t. Historians would love to have independent evidence of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus, but there isn’t… so most historians refrain from taking a position one way or the other. The ones that do have to make do with what little objective information they have, and the best they can come up with is: well because of this embarassing thing, it’s more likely that he did exist and was crucified than that he didn’t, because why would they make that up?

    That’s rather weak evidence, and far from “proof”.

    Not sure why you’d need more

    Well for one because the more prominent people who have studied this have a vested interest in wanting it to be true. For example, John P. Meier, who posited this criterion of embarassment that I outlined in my previous comment, isn’t really a historian but a catholic priest, professor of theology (not history) and a writer of books on the subject.






  • We are talking about addresses, not counters. An inherently hierarchical one at that. If you don’t use the bits you are actually wasting them.

    Bullshit.

    I have a 64-bit computer, it can address up to 18.4 exabytes, but my computer only has 32GB, so I will never use the vast majority that address space. Am I “wasting” it?

    All the 128 bits are used in IPv6. ;)

    Yes they are all “used” but you don’t need them. We are not using 2^128 ip addresses in the world. In your own terminology: you are using 4 registers for a 2 register problem. That is much more wasteful in terms of hardware than using 40 bits to represent an ip address and wasting 24 bits.


  • you are wasting 24 bits of a 64-bit register

    You’re not “wasting” them if you just don’t need the extra bits, Are you wasting a 32-bit integer if your program only ever counts up to 1000000?

    Even so when you do start to need them, you can gradually make the other bits available in the form of more octets. Like you can just define it as a.b.c.d.e = 0.a.b.c.d.e = 0.0.a.b.c.d.e = 0.0.0.a.b.c.d.e

    Recall that IPv6 came out just a year before the Nintendo 64

    If you’re worried about wasting registers it makes even less sense to switch from a 32-bit addressing space to a 128-bit one in one go.

    Anyway, your explanation is a perfect example of “second system effect” at work. You get all caught up in the mistakes of the first system, in casu the lack of addressing bits, and then you go all out to correct those mistakes for your second system, giving it all the bits humanity could ever need before the heat death of the universe, while ignoring the real world implications of your choices. And now you are surprised that nobody wants to use your 128-bit abomination.