Trial by Fire. I just looked it up and one of the first handful of screenshots looked almost exactly like this.
I've never played it and never would've thought of it, so the W goes to you IMO. All I was confident of was that the graphics and UI screamed "early 2000s PC game".
There's a whole lot of math in that article, and to be honest I'm not 100% clear on what they're trying to say. I think they're talking about how standard quantization isn't making full or "accurate" use of the number space, although if you read through to the end they note that there's really nothing terribly wrong with the standard way. But here's my take.
To simplify, I'll use an integer range 0-4 instead of 0-255, but the principle's the same.
So, say that we're quantizing from a floating-point range of 0.0-1.0 to an integer range of 0-4. Doing things the usual way, that'd be the orange numbers on the bottom of this diagram:
But you can see that this doesn't line up cleanly with a nice, regular division of the range into 5 equal blocks. If we just multiply by 4 (our integer max) and then round off to the nearest integer, the original value ranges represented by our integer 0 and 4 are half the size of the others. E.g. 0.0 to 0.49 become 0, but 0.5 to 1.49 become 1.
Now, if we want to represent true 0.0 and 1.0 simply with our integer range (0-4), we should use 0 to exactly equal 0.0, and 4 to exactly equal 1.0. And converting from integer to float by calculating [value / 4] (or [value / 255] in reality) will get us exactly that. I wouldn't change that.
What I would suggest changing--to anyone who cares enough about it--is how the numbers are converted from float to integer. If you look at the diagram again, you can see that there is one orange integer per evenly-divided block, even if they don't line up with the centers of the blocks. If we take a float (0.0-1.0) representation and multiply it by our integer max plus one, we'll get the blue numbers at the top of the diagram. Then all we have to do is round down to the nearest integer and cap the result at 4 (or 255, or whatever our integer max is), and we'll have a nice, even distribution in our conversion.
I could have misunderstood, but it seems like all of the errors and uncertainty discussed in the article come from how the multiplied floats are truncated into integers. I think that this method eliminates that cleanly.
For VHS, it was much more common to record things from broadcast. Even if someone had multiple machines, copies using standard consumer VHS degraded noticeably even in one generation.
For DVDs, writing drives were expensive and uncommon for a long time, and most early players didn't like burned discs, so you were limited in how you could watch them anyway. I know that some people got into the mindset of physically cloning the discs, but I feel like it was at least as common to rip, re-encode just the main title with a more modern codec to shrink the size, and store that smaller copy electronically.
Ragebait, pure and simple.
Most of us interpret "a hill I will die on" as holding an opinion that we know some people disagree with, but that we believe so strongly that we'll fight for it.
Many of the articles in this series seem to interpret it as knowingly taking the stupidest, pettiest opinion that has ever occurred to them and deliberately overstating it so that others want to kill them.
Also, even as an Aussie who prefers Vegemite to Marmite, that last article in the list can burn in a dumpster fire for multiple reasons. So job well done, I suppose.
Surely it shouldn't be surprising that a technology which literally can only regurgitate bits of things which others have already made, when put into the hands of people whose imagination is limited to what already exists (or alternatively, is not meaningfully directed) precisely because they lack an understanding of the underlying principles, results in only slight variations of the things we already have.
I can't immediately give you a smartphone app concept that completely breaks an existing, arbitrary taxonomy, but there are two good reasons for that. One; anything that can still run on a smartphone can almost certainly be shoehorned into any existing taxonomy by carefully-worded arguments. Two; by the time a break with tradition is clear enough that such arguments become impossibly tenuous, smartphones will be things that our great-grandparents used to use.
To counterpoint the author's smartphone analogy, think of how people looked at their TVs in the early 1970s. It was a society-changing but by that time relatively established technology with high growth. And people had all sorts of ideas for "new" things to do with it. You could've made arguments regarding most of them in the same vein as the arguments in this article. Most of those ideas were half-baked and failed at the time... only to resurface decades later, altered, refined, and successful, on PCs and smartphones. But PCs and smartphones are not, in any real sense, TVs.
Which surprisingly, once I hunkered down and pushed my way through this lengthy essay, is essentially one of the points that I think the author is making (although obliquely): That by the time this technology has evolved beyond its current limits, it will no longer be something that we recognize as "software" in the current sense.
I suggest trying to keep the concepts of "integrated system design" and "algorithmic process definition" separate from "digital computer software" in a similar way. Which, funnily enough, are the parts of all of this at which humans arguably still beat LLMs.
"Of course, consoles are important, but the proportion of people who play on PCs is steadily increasing. Even in areas where consoles are not widely available, there are many people who say, 'I can play it on PC.'"
This quote hits a little different when you know that Sega sells almost everything digitally for PC in the Americas and Europe, but virtually nothing within Japan and other selected countries.
They do not care about making their games available to customers. They care about profits. Overseas, the PC segment is big enough to be worth pursuing. In some countries it outstrips the console segment. But in Japan it's small enough that it makes more sense not to support PC, but rather to try to keep customers locked in to consoles, where they have tighter control and less competition.
We bought a new car a few years ago that came with a whole suite of sensors and warnings. I'd like to turn them off, but my partner insists on turning them on again every time I do, so I need to deal with them. In the first six months with the new car, I think I had four or five near-accidents caused by the "safety" system suddenly making some loud noise when I was already partway through a manoever. But after a while I became able to tune out the stream of beeps, boops, and buzzes that come about half a second too late to be of any use, when they're not false alarms.
The car also has a "safety" feature I don't think I can disable, that restricts acceleration when proximity sensors are triggered. It was not a pleasant feeling to be in the path of a multi-ton truck, flooring the accelerator, and having the car slowly mosey forward at the pace of a quiet afternoon stroll down a country lane. Worse, I believe that it was the barrelling behemoth itself which caused this reaction. Fortunately, I found quite by accident that if you keep pumping the accelerator in a blind panic for a couple of seconds, the car decides that you might really be serious about accelerating, and that maybe it should defer to the actual human intelligence that's nominally in control of the vehicle. That, or the idiot software finally clocked that I was already in the truck's way, and needed to get out of it. But subsequent events have lent credence to the pedal-pumping theory.
I feel like new, automated "safety" features are going to kill and injure at least as many people as they protect.
Great! Let's put 24/7 webcams in his house, so he'll perform spectacularly and we can get many more absolute banger ideas like this one!
I'm just doing what the man himself says: "Fighting for a world where the watching goes both ways." But then, I suspect that when he said that he was thinking it's "us versus the government", and not "regular citizens versus billionaire tech-robber-barons".
Why do these tech-bros always seem to act like the problem is government, and they're somehow "fighting the good fight" no matter what they do? The problem is any powerful group with the power to steamroller others. And big business is at least as bad as big government.
It's 2026 and people are still falsely conflating digital with suspect and physical with safe. We live in a world where plenty of commercial software that comes "on a disk" is unuseable without constant approval from the publisher, and plenty of "digital download" software can be downloaded once and then used and reinstalled forever without needing to ask for anyone's permission.
I understand the confusion. For a long time, you got an item on physical media, and no-one could take it away from you. Then downloads and cloud services became popular, and at the same time this crap started happening. But not everyone's trying to screw us with downloads, and the people who are, are doing their damndest to screw us via physical media as well.
The issue isn't digital vs. physical, it's own vs. lease.
A little while ago in a retrogaming community, someone asked why Atari 2600 games always ran at 60fps when even NES games sometimes had slowdown. It was explained that the video system in the 2600 isn't independent of the main CPU as it is in other consoles, so if the game program doesn't keep updating the display with correct timing, it gets scrambled.
Truly no choice!
In both cases the trading value of the currency has almost nothing to do with who originated it, and almost everything to do with how the general public feels about it.
Just like crypto, most "government" currencies are worth what they're worth only because everyone agrees that they are. That's called "fiat" currency. And that's why fiat currency exchange markets exist. The US Dollar hasn't been "convertible" (redeemable for a fixed amount of precious metal) since 1971, and many other world currencies were already backed in some way by the US Dollar at that time.
The real difference is in the supply.
Government fiat currency is difficult to counterfeit, although the government (or reserve bank) can always make more whenever they want. We trust them not to print more money, increasing the money supply and devaluing the currency. However, this is exactly what has happened sometimes in the past, and no doubt will happen again in the future.
Crypto currency is virtually impossible to counterfeit, and IIRC there's a finite (but not precisely known) amount of it that can be made, no matter who you are.
Personally, I still use physical fiat currency and no crypto. I'd like to use crypto, but regulation in my country makes it very difficult to use without registering your details with a central authority. And although everyone's pushing e-money options which are similarly tracked, thankfully I still have the option of using anonymous cash.
I don't do anything bad or illegal. I just believe that government and big business don't deserve to know everything I do in my life simply because they want to.