I am in Portugal right now. You know something we don’t have often here? Garages.
For example in my neighborhood most cars are parallel parked, people are living in centuries old houses converted into high density condos, there are no garages.
So what is more practical, charging your car overnight without an electric plug or going to the gas station for a few minutes?
>>So what is more practical, charging your car overnight without an electric plug or going to the gas station for a few minutes?
100x charging your car overnight with a plug. I don't think people who don't own an EV realize how great that is. Imagine if your petrol car magically got refilled with fuel every single night - add up all of those "few minutes" spent at a petrol station over your lifetime, and realize how much time you're getting back.
>> people are living in centuries old houses converted into high density condos, there are no garages
And yeah, that's a problem everywhere, not just in Portugal. Here in the UK a lot of people wouldn't have anywhere to charge at home.
Please don’t repeat the myth that your car is getting refilled every very night unless you are charging to 100% every night or are willing to concede your range is 80% of the stated range.
If your daily driving needs can be fulfilled with 80% charge, you're coming out to a car that is effectively full every morning. Remember you still have the option to charge to 100% if you know you need to go longer the following day.
Between batteries getting bigger and home charging for many reasons capping at Level 2 (US "dryer plug" / UK regular plug) many EVs don't have enough time to recharge to 100% every night. That said, any over night gains are still better than gas can do.
(The unique US problem that the easiest charging is Level 1 is a complication here, too, because it especially can't recharge modern battery sizes overnight. But overnight Level 1 charging is still a game changer versus no overnight gas refueling. The "what's the point of charging when it can't do 100% overnight?" crowd can be quite vocal, despite gas cars having no easy way to refuel overnight.)
This is how it needs to work, but in practice it doesn't really exist right now. (And, in the few places where it does exist, the price basically destroys a lot of the running costs advantages of an EV).
I do have a garage and 'fuel' is half the cost of my previous, smaller ICE. We're considering solar power to get it practically free.
There's some nicer differences like leaving the air-conditioning on constantly because there's no pollution and it's also practically free. It's nice to have a giant battery instead of requiring an engine to constantly recharge it to run the electronics.
That's cost, not practicality. Like it or not, the EV isn't as flexible when it comes to ownership, because you need a place to charge it. A product that is less practical has to be cheaper to compete in the market.
>>A product that is less practical has to be cheaper to compete in the market.
Unless the downside doesn't matter to you, then obviously it doesn't. Our e-Up was more expensive than a regular petrol Up, but it was absolutely worth paying the extra for the convenience of being able to charge it at home - it's like having your own personal petrol station in your own driveway.
For someone else, that might have been an inconvenience and the car would have to be much cheaper to offset the hassle - for us it was worth the premium. So it's not so clear cut as you present it.
With batteries reaching 800-1000km per charge and most people doing around 30km a day of driving (way less for people living in dense areas), you basically only need to charge your car once every two weeks.
All other games from the same studio have the same features.
In fact, the whole point of their games is that they are coop games where is easy to accidentally kill your allies in hilarious manners. It is the reason for example why to cast stratagems you use complex key sequences, it is intentional so that you can make mistake and cast the wrong thing.
It's actually a really nice spell casting system. It lets you have a ton of different spells with only 4 buttons. It rewards memorizing the most useful (like reinforce). It gives a way for things like the squid disruptor fields or whatever they're called to mess with your muscle memory while still allowing spells. It would be way less interesting if it was just using spell slots like so many other games.
The only wrong thing I've been throwing is the SOS Beacon instead of a Reinforce, which is just annoying, and not just once. It makes the game public if it was friends-only and gives it priority in the quick play queue. So that can't be it.
The dialing adds friction to tense situations, which is okay as a mechanic.
Location: Porto, Portugal
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Yes
Technologies: Lua, C, C++, GameDev, Python, know some embedded and some cloud stuff.
Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gamedesigner
Email: mauricio.gomes@coderofworlds.com
Looking for C or C++ roles. (or similar). GameDev and Embedded at my first choices but any work with these technologies is fine. I was working as C++ engineer for a train physics simulation software at Siemens. before that my work was for a pluginless browser luxury ad game company, I was responsible for making ads created using Unreal Engine 5 run on Linux using Wine, receiving the keyboard and mouse commands sent by the browser and giving back compressed video to the browser. Before that I worked for an BMW subsidiary that works with programming for the car themselves, so automotive is fine too.
I also did DevRel in the past and recently interviewed some DevRel positions, made me realize I am also suitable for that and willing to work with that.
I have a lot of experience with iOS and Android, but been some time since I worked with these.
There are some effects that notoriously work only on rather specific combinations of screens AND cables. Those look horrible on emulators.
Usually it is effects involving transparency, some games for example literally rendered some things only on some frames and not the others, to achieve 50% transparency, others tried alternating scanlines, or the most crazy one: Sonic that made a transparent waterfall by relying on the fact that cables common at that time blurred pixels horizontally, thus it renders one column that is water and one column that is not, and hope they will be blurred into one single column that is 50% transparent water on top of the background.
Can't be shown with a screenshot: Axelay. I never seen that game running on a real CRT to compare, but on emulators that game look horrible, with distortions and flickering things everywhere, I was told this was not the intention at all, instead they relied heavily on CRT hardware to create pseudo-3D and transparency.
I had a music teacher that insisted analog recordings were different.
One day she said there is a simple way to prove it. Certain stringed instruments have the string move on their own to the correct note if you put them near a source of similar sound. If you put these instruments in front of a speaker playing from an analog source and have the strings move, then play the exact same music but from a digital source on the same speaker, the strings stop moving, even if to most humans it sounds exactly the same.
Sadly I never had the gear to test this, I am not a professional musician and was learning from that person as a hobby (she is a teacher for professional musicians).
If you do ever test this, and do it rigorously (i.e. using analogue and digital versions of the same recording, with no pitch inaccuracies) you'll find the strings will resonate equally well with analogue and digital recordings, all other things (volume, tuning of the instrument, etc.) being equal.
The problem is that all other things are no longer equal, and have not been for quite some time.
Retuning digital audio to 440Hz equal temperament is an industry norm now, even for (say) re-issued 1970s stuff. You just won't get modern digital versions that are the same as the analogue versions, and the equal temperament stuff thus won't pass a resonance test unless the test instrument is also equal temperament, which most string instruments of course are not.
The far easier test for amateurs nowadays is not to buy a whole string instrument, but to use pitch monitoring applications, which all too readily show when a sound is bang-on the specific equal temperament frequencies.
Auto tune pitch correction is entirely separate from whether a properly engineered digital recording can match an analog recording to a level well beyond the ability of human biology to detect any difference in randomized, controlled, double-blinded ABX testing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test).
> The problem is that all other things are no longer equal
There are many digital recordings which have no pitch correction or other tonal manipulation applied. In those cases, all things are still equal for the purposes of the statement above.
As a separate matter, I agree auto-tune and other manipulation can be inappropriately or excessively applied, however over manipulation isn't unique to digital, it occurred in the analog era too – such as dynamic range compression and multi-band dynamic equalization. Those tools existed in tube-based, purely analog form long before digital recording became the norm and caused similar complaints when they were misapplied. There were even analog pitch correctors although they weren't nearly as flexible or precise as today's digital versions.
I find this dubious since the effect she was describing is caused by resonance frequency. Since, in the example provided, the source is an amplified speaker pushing air in both cases the outcome should be the same. The more famous test of this principle is the breaking of a glass and I would be surprised if this hadn't been done with digital signal inputs.
I agree. In both cases a continuously varying voltage is driving speaker cone deflection. If the voltages of two different signals vary in precisely the same way, the cone will deflect to exactly the same degree and the resulting pressure wave will generate the same resonant response from any surface it encounters. When properly implemented, today's high-end, esoteric ADC and DAC converters have insane bandwidth, frequency response and fidelity far exceeding these requirements.
Some of the confusion comes from the fact that back when consumer audio transitioned to digital and these production workflows were new, some early digital recordings were incorrectly engineered or mastered creating artifacts such as aliasing which critical listeners could hear. Some people assumed the artifacts they heard were innate to all digital audio instead of just incorrect implementation of a new technology. Even today, it's possible to screw up the fidelity of a digital master but it's rarely an issue because workflows are standardized and modern tooling has default presets based on well-validated audio science (for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_shaping#Dithering). But even in the analog era it was always a truism in audio and video engineering that "there are infinite ways to screw up a signal but only a few ways to preserve it." And it remains true today. To me, one of the best things about modern digital tooling is it's much easier to verify correctness in the signal chain.
I got very sad when my CRT monitor died. I was using a Radeon RX 380X, part of the reason is that it was one of the few cards to still have analog output.
Then I went and played lots of recent games in lower resolution, but could turn on lots of expensive effects even with such underpowered card, because I could do low-res with anti-alias disabled and no scaling and have decent results.
But true pleasure was playing for example Crypt of Necrodancer on that screen, the game felt so easy. I eventually stopped playing after that screen died, I could never nail the timing anymore on modern screens, the response time is not the same.
Technology made driving f1 cars less brutal on the body. To start of in the first seasons a lot of stuff was unknown, for example some drivers wanted oxygen bottle so they wouldn't pass out while carefully leaving a fire. Others preferred instead to have the car to be the most easy as possible to leave, if a fire happened.
Now there is also head support, while drivers back then had to just use their muscles to hold their head in place.
The list goes on... but it still is an athletic sport. When Nico Rosberg decided to win the championship, he had to heavily change his routine to so way more fitness training than he was used to. After he won the championship and immediately retired, he hinted that one of the reasons for retirement is that he didn't want to continue with the heavy body training.
So when I got forced to use Win11 I went to look for a script that disable telemetry. Then I see the script offers the feature of using old behavior for right click menu...
I immediately started to think: but old behavior was so simple and obvious, what is there to change? The I right clicked to check. Immediately was hit with the wtf changes. Why? Why MS?
For example in my neighborhood most cars are parallel parked, people are living in centuries old houses converted into high density condos, there are no garages.
So what is more practical, charging your car overnight without an electric plug or going to the gas station for a few minutes?
reply