• Announcements


      D1P 2017 Charity Campaign for The Life You Can Save: $1,615 (as of June 4, 2017)   12/12/2016

      I've decided to extend our charity campaign for The Life You Can Save organizations for the entirety of 2017 so feel free to contribute at any time!  Periodically through the year, I'll have game giveaways for those who have donated to the campaign as a "thank you" for supporting this worthy endeavor!

      D1Pcast Episode D1Pcast Episode 28 - E3 2017 Rabbids Everywhere (Ft. SeVeN CDN and GuyWhoPostThings)   06/01/2017

      E3 2017 has come and gone and now we are left with this empty feeling as we know we have to wait another 365 days for the next one. We [email protected] [email protected]@[email protected] I break down everything that was glorious (and not so glorious) at E3 2017. From EA's snoozefest to Microsoft's XOXO launch exclusivitiness to Devolver Digitals blood bath! So listen on in as we grade each conference and even have an extra special guest way in their thoughts on Ubisoft's conference in this months D1Pcast!      

      E3 2017 is upon us!   06/07/2017

      The annual celebration of all things video gaming is upon us, so let us share in the revelry and post the news, videos, interviews, and discussion topics in our dedicated E3 2017 board here:   http://www.dayonepatch.com/index.php?/forum/122-e3-2017/   Also, feel free to join our Discord server for live text and voice chat of the various conferences - here's an invite that (theoretically) should not expire:   https://discord.gg/chqTQ2F   Let's all have a magnificent E3!


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About TwinIon

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    San Diego
  • Interests
    Technology, Games, Film, Scuba, Cars
  • Xbox Live
    Collateral Damg

Recent Profile Visitors

19,867 profile views
  1. Apparently Cameron has been working with Christie Digital on a new RGB laser projection system that they say will do glasses free 3D. Assuming this even works, it means that theaters would need a whole new projection system (and screen?), so I imagine that even in a best case scenario that few theaters will adopt the tech right away. I'm also curious if this system will do high frame rate, which was something that Cameron was reportedly focusing on with these films.
  2. Anyone think that WW could beat out Guardians 2 or even get to $400M? It's at $321M to Guardians' $380M, but this weekend we have Despicable Me 3 and Baby Driver, and after that is Spider-Man. It'll be close, but I think it ends up just shy of Guardians 2.
  3. I see your point, but there are lots of examples of companies that do manage to compete against the free products of giant companies. WeChat, WhatsApp, Snapchat, and any other number of social companies have managed to break out despite the best efforts of Google and Facebook, among others. There are certainly markets where Google's model makes it difficult or impossible to compete, like Maps, but interestingly we're seeing more and more competition even there (although it's among other large companies like Apple, Microsoft, Telsa, and Uber). Pretty much every large tech company does many free products, but they're not all class or market share leading. Apple gives away most of their software and even Microsoft is increasingly giving things away for free. Google's model isn't particularly unique in that regard.
  4. Isn't this exactly what mobile Safari does? Microsoft certainly pushed their position, but the issue with IE never seemed like the kind of thing they should have been in trouble for. IE should have been a default part of the OS. It was clear that the web was a big deal and they should have their own product in that space, and I don't see the problem with it being the default. It was easy enough to get a new browser if it was better, which is why FireFox and then Chrome eventually toppled IE's dominance. There were plenty of legitimate reasons to go out after MS, especially with the way they bullied manufacturers with pricing and forcing them to not release devices with other Operating Systems. The inclusion of IE by default wasn't a show of their monopoly power. Similarly, with Google, this doesn't seem like a very good reason to go after them. @ort brings up a great example of where Google's dominance and direct actions actually should be looked at. Yes, it's a consumer friendly move by Google, but it also effectively destroyed a small business because they were so good at doing their job. The price comparison sites were simply not the best way to find products, and consumer behavior shifted because of it. Amazon, eBay, and Google ate their lunch, but they didn't necessarily do it unfairly.
  5. So I guess the question you have to ask is what does a "Bond Universe" film without Bond look like? If the protagonist is just another double O on a Bond-ish mission, then it probably just feels like a cheap knock off. Perhaps you could expand the spying world a bit more and focus on characters like Felix Leiter. Have the American/French/Japanese/whatever Bond equivalent take center stage? That still feels more like a wanna-be Bond than a worthwhile direction. Focusing on the side characters of M, Q, and Moneypenny could be something. M naturally leads to a more political-ish drama, Q could be the protagonist in a (hopefully better) Blackhat style film, and Moneypenny could easily fit into either. Moneypenny might actually be the most interesting side character that could be a protagonist. They've got Naomie Harris in the role and established she was a field agent. There's probably something there where she's thrust into an action role she's not ready for.
  6. Looking at it algorithmically, which, if you're Facebook, you kind of have to, it makes a certain amount of sense. I imagine that in those training slides White Men were chosen as the protected group because it seems like the wrong answer, but it fits the algorithm. You don't want to react emotionally to what you feel should be protected, if you're training thousands of people and algorithms, you want them to follow the rules you laid out. Their protected categories closely mirror protected classes in the US. At first blush it does look so bad as to be a hoax, but I think it actually makes a certain amount of sense. Maybe it's not the best way to deal with hate speech, but hate speech is difficult to sort, and I think platforms in general should be careful to not overly censor. They don't consider "Black Children" or "Women Drivers" to be protected categories, but they do consider blacks and women to be. It's an odd distinction to make in my opinion, because it means that even a minor amount of specificity that doesn't involve a protected category nullifies the protection of a broader category. So you can hate black teenagers but not black men. You can hate women workers but not Mexican women. If there's anything that deserves to be questioned about these policies, it's how the "math" on these rules work. Maybe it should be a matter of subsets and supersets, rather than simple cancellation. If the superset of the group in question is a protected category, then it should be a protected category. If the subset of a group is a protected category, but the superset is not, then don't treat it that way. Perhaps that's not something that can really be established, so it's not a workable solution, but it feels like their current algorithm isn't great.
  7. Excellent news. I wonder if they're going to approach season 4 as the final season. I think they could tie everything up if they wanted to, and I wouldn't be excited to bet on a season 5 order.
  8. Then the car driver is seriously guilty. The motorcyclist is far from innocent; attacking a car is a stupid thing to do even if he's being a dick, but trying to hit a motorcycle with a car at speed seems like it's a pretty serious crime.
  9. The BCRA is following the AHCA script pretty closely so far. Complete secrecy, followed by a disaster of a CBO score before failing to get the votes as scheduled. If the pattern holds, we'll get some minor revisions that don't make any real difference, but it'll be enough to pass.
  10. They sure turned up the crazy in season 2. Maybe I'm forgetting, and I know there was some occasional gore in Season 1, but I don't remember it being so consistent. I still don't love the show, but I'm on board for sure. I still like the core trio of characters, and the buddy road trip thing is working for me.
  11. It's not clear to me if the driver of the car simply didn't see the motorcycle at all, and jerked the wheel when there was a sudden impact on the car of unknown origin, or if he saw the motorcycle and swerved in retaliation. The former is a terrible reaction from an unaware driver, the latter is attempted manslaughter at least. I generally assume ignorance before malice. There's no one ahead of the car when it crosses the double yellow to get into the carpool lane, so if the car was knowingly cutting off the motorcycle, there must have been some ongoing road rage at play. Given the leisurely way he changed lanes, I feel like that's unlikely. More likely to me is that car was an unaware idiot who reacted in the worst possible way when the prick on the motorcycle went out of his way to exacerbate the situation.
  12. The Commission said that those comparison sites had been "demoted" because Google's algorithms "included a number of criteria." The way I read that was that Google specifically changed their algorithm to make those sites rank lower. Their Fact Sheet calls out "Google's illegal practices and the distortions to competition", but also says the evidence "cannot be published at present without the consent of Google and other third parties, because it may contain business sensitive information." You're right that it's pretty vague, but I feel like they're accusing Google of some pretty harsh stuff, but the evidence they've provided thus far is mostly that traffic to these comparison sites has dropped off a cliff. The other annoying thing about this stupid ruling is that they don't have any real idea how to fix it. They say that Google must give "equal treatment to rival comparison shopping services and its own service," and they want it done in 60 days. It's so odd to me that they're forcing Google to promote a middleman like this. If the complaint was that Google pushed down the results of retailer pages that didn't advertise with them, I think that might be a valid case, but what consumer is being served by forcing Google to surface a middleman to a product they're looking for? I really hope Google wins on appeal.
  13. Here's the text from the EU commision itself: It's pretty unarguable that Google puts their own service at the top. The question as to if that is anti-competitive is something I think most Americans would disagree with the EU on. If I'm using any company's product, I certainly expect that they'll push other products of theirs over their competitors'. Even for a company in Google's position, I don't think that's particularly problematic, but the EU seems to disagree. That Google specifically engineered their search algorithm to demote competing comparison shopping services does feel much more questionable. Again, I personally might not go so far as to say they're not allowed to, but deliberately "sabotaging" their competitors does seem shady. Here's Google's last response on that topic. I'm rather biased, but I tend to believe Google's argument. When I search for a product I'm very likely to click on an Amazon/Best Buy/etc. product page, and I'll almost never click on a comparison shopping site. Sometimes I'll use Google Shopping, but I'm much more likely to start on Amazon or another retailer that I already use like NewEgg or CDW. I think that the EU commision likely did find that comparison shopping tools fell in the rankings terribly, but I think that shift was likely driven more by consumer preference than purposeful Google manipulation. I doubt a lot of comparison shopping sites rank highly in Bing either. This investigation just happened to coincide with the fall of comparison shopping tools in general.
  14. I think there's one other factor that doesn't get brought up enough with monitors for some reason, and that's size. I personally really enjoy having a really large monitor, and that preference ends up guiding my other choices. I enjoy that large screen for gaming, but I really enjoy it for everything else, and if you want a 40" screen, then your options are limited, and 4K is a necessity. If you want something around 27", I think 1440p is a much nicer resolution than 4K. You don't have to deal with scaling or pushing the extra pixels, and the faster refresh rate is really nice. Even at 32" I think a 1600p resolution is still worthwhile. Personally, wouldn't bother with 4K until your monitor is over 32". I love a good pixel dense screen, but I don't think the tradeoffs are really worthwhile right now. It takes too much to push those pixels, you lose higher refresh rates and have to deal with Windows' scaling issues. I know some people won't even consider something that's not 144hz, but it's very much a preference. In the end, just decide which factors matter most to you, but I think size is the first thing to settle on.