You are arguing as if nothing material in the US has changed while at the same time arguing “be more polite towards my ignorance|avoidance of the situation.” It comes across as arguing in bad faith.
The US can no longer be trusted based on the actions of this administration. Other countries are pragmatically and reasonably adjusting accordingly, very publicly. There are other options besides the US from an economic, trade, investment, and defense ally perspective. These are facts. Whether you believe them is a choice.
No I just think this is so obvious by reading literally any news website for 5 minutes that I can only conclude that someone saying it's "hypothetical" is either acting maliciously or they are actually ignorant of what's going on.
I have several machines contributing to it all the time, and every now and then I run it on my 5090 at home to heat up my room a bit in winter :D It does an incredible 1M points per day, it's a monster of a GPU.
I feel like there's some strong rose tinted glasses effect happening here. Early 2000s were especially full of absolutely dreadful CGI and VFX in almost every film that used them unless you were Pixar, Dreamworks, or Lucasfilms. I can give you almost countless examples of this.
The only thing that changed is that now it's easier than ever to make something on a cheap budget, but this absolutely used to happen 20-30 years ago too, horror CGI was the standard not an exception.
>> It's got a ton of optimisations and tweaks to make it run in realtime, but if you're making a movie there's no reason not to spend hours rendering each frame.
That's how it's used though? It only runs real time for preview, but the final product is very much not rendered in real time at all. Obviously it's a very flexible tool that works with what you need and what you can afford - Disney runs it on their compute farm and they can throw the resources at it to render at the fidelity required. But obviously there are plenty of production houses which don't have those kind of resources and they have to make do with less. But then you wouldn't expect Pixar's own pipeline to work in those circumstances, would you.
>> Unreal does have the ability to render out video but it's not going to be the same fidelity.
I really encourage you to look into what's possible with UE nowadays. Custom made pipelines from Pixar or Dreamworks are better still, of course, but UE can absolutely stand next to them.
The problem is the way surface lighting/scattering is calculated, which does not match what traditional offline renders do.
My issue with UE is the opposite, the engine went too far into cinema production, and making it a performant game engine requires code refactoring. At which point an open-source engine might be a better choice. Its a mix of two (three) worlds, and not the best choice for one specific use.
For what is actually hard to do, like character animation, UE is a good choice. The lighting can be replaced more easily than the animation system.
Here in UK it's "well known" that going to a prestigious school like Eton is about being in one class with kids of prime ministers, presidents and oil sheikhs, so you have those connections for life and you can always call up on those. In that context going to university and studying almost anything could be a waste of time if you have someone who can help you get into places straight away.
US Nurses are more and more using an "uber for nursing" apps which buy US credit data to change the rates they offer nurses - the more debt they have, the lower rates they get because they are judged to be more desperate.
>>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.
>>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.)
How does it feel to bury your head in the sand so hard that you can't see what's happening around you?
reply