tal

I have a very, very tiny folding knife (less than an inch blade) on my keychain, and unless I'm flying somewhere, I always have that, and I suppose that that could cut a seatbelt, though I doubt that it'd be likely for the seatbelt to jam. No glass punch, though.

investigates

Hmm. Apparently, yeah, some Tesla vehicles do and some do not.

reads further

It sounds like autos in general are shifting away from tempered glass side windows to laminated glass, so those window breakers may not be effective on a number of newer cars. Hmm. Well, that's interesting.

https://info.glass.com/laminated-vs-tempered-car-side-windows/

You may have seen it in the news recently—instances of someone getting stuck in their vehicle after an accident because the car was equipped with laminated side windows. Laminated windows are nearly impossible to break with traditional glass-break tools. These small devices are carried in many driver’s gloveboxes because they easily break car windows so that occupants can escape in emergency situations. Unfortunately, these traditional glass-break tools don’t work with laminated side windows. Even first responder professionals have difficulty breaking through laminated glass windows with specialized tools. It can take minutes to saw through and remove laminated glass. In comparison, tempered glass breaks away in mere seconds.

One other factor that I think is an issue with motion blur: the modeling of shifting gaze in video games often isn't fantastic, due to input and output device limitations.

So, say you're just looking straight ahead in a game. Then motion blur might be fine -- only moving objects are blurred.

But one very prominent place where motion blur shows up is when the direction of your view is changing.

In a video game, especially if you're using a gamepad, it takes a while to turn around. And during that time, if the game is modeling motion blur, your view of the scene is blurred.

Try moving your eyeballs from side to side for a bit. You will get a motion-blurred scene. So that much is right.

But the problem is that if you look to the side in real life, it's pretty quick. You can maybe snap your eyes there, or maybe do a head turn plus an eye movement. It doesn't take a long time for your eyes to reach their destination.

So you aren't getting motion blur of the whole surrounding environment for long.

That is, humans have eyes that can turn rapidly and independently of our heads to track things, and heads that can turn independently of our torsos. So we often can keep our eyes facing in one direction or snap to another direction, and so we have limited periods of motion blur.

Then on top of that, many first person shooters or other games have a crosshair centered on the view. So aiming involves moving the view too. That is, the twin-stick video game character is basically an owl, with eyes that look in a fixed position relative to their head, additionally with their head fixed relative to their torso (at least in terms of yaw), and additionally with a gun strapped to their face, and additionally, with a limited rate of turn. A real life person like that would probably find motion blur more prominent too, since a lot of time, they'd be having to be moving their view relative to what they want to be looking at.

Might be that it'd be better if you're playing a game with a VR rig, since then you can have -- given appropriate hardware -- eyetracking and head tracking and aiming all separate, just like a human.

EDIT: Plus the fact that usually monitors are a smaller FOV than human FOV, so you have to move your direction of view more for situational awareness.

https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gcrlhn/what_fov_do_humans_have_like_in_video_games_can/

Human field of view is around 210 degrees horizontally. Each eye has about 150 degrees, with about 110 degrees common to the two and 40 degrees visible only to that eye.

A typical monitor takes up a considerably smaller chunk of one's viewing arc. My recall from past days is that PC FPS FOV is traditionally rendered at 90 degrees. That's actually usually a fisheye lens effect -- actual visible arc of the screen is usually lower, like 50 degrees, if you were gonna get an undistorted view. IIRC, true TV FOV is usually even smaller, as TVs are larger but viewers sit a lot further away, so console games might be lower. So you're working with this relatively-small window into the video game world, and you need to move your view around more to help maintain situational awareness; again, more movement of your direction of view. A VR rig also might help with that, I suppose, due to the wide FOV.

Mangband is a realtime multiplayer modification of Angband that forced turns every N amount of time, and while it is playable, yeah, I don't think that straight multiplayer conversions of traditional roguelikes work well.

Someone who wanted to try to do a "multiplayer traditional roguelikes" ' would probably need to make a number of game design changes at a pretty fundamental level to make the thing work well. Really a new game.

There are some multiplayer roguelites out there:

https://old.reddit.com/r/roguelikes/comments/auzail/best_coop_multiplayer_roguelikes/

That might kinda be something that the parent poster would be interested in.

Motion blur is a win if it's done correctly. Your visual system can make use of that blur to determine the movement of objects, expects it. Move your hand quickly in front of your eyes -- your fingers are a blur.

If you've ever seen something filmed at a high frame rate and then played back at a low frame rate without any sort of interpolation, it looks pretty bad. Crystal-clear stills, but jerky.

A good approximation -- if computationally-expensive -- is to keep ramping FPS higher and higher.

But...that's also expensive, and your head can't actually process 1000 Hz or whatever. What it's getting is just a blur of multiple frames.

It's theoretically possible to have motion blur approaches that are more-efficient than fully rendering each frame, slapping it on a monitor, and letting your eye "blur" it. That being said, I haven't been very impressed by what I've seen so far in games. But if done correctly, yeah, you'd want it.

EDIT: A good example of a specialized motion blur that's been around forever in video games has been the arc behind a swinging sword. It gives the sense of motion without having to render a bazillion frames to get that nice, smooth arc.

In contrast, the Internet very much designed for one-to-one communication.

It's not widely used today the way broadcast TV was, but there is multicast. Twenty years ago, I was watching NASA TV streamed over the Mbone.

There, the routers are set up to handle sending packets to multiple specific destinations, one-to-many, so it is pretty efficient.

I haven't been playing competitive FPS games for a long time, but they used to be a dime a dozen. There must be some kind of alternative multiplayer FPS that you could just play instead if you're not happy with Call of Duty.

How can there not be rail traffic in Libya? I mean, there has to be some kind of line that runs along the southern rim of the Pacific.

kagis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Libya

Hmm. Apparently the map is right.

There have been no operational railways in Libya since 1965, but various lines existed in the past. Since 1998, plans for an extensive system have been developed,[1] but work has largely halted since the outbreak of the First Libyan Civil War in 2011.

kagis for an Africa rail map

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fzewtbml8t4481.jpg

It looks like there's rail along the south Mediterranean rim except through Libya. Doesn't even detour south around Libya. I guess one switches cargo to ship or truck or something.

Doesn't get taken up into the body, goes from the mouth out the rear.

Other than moderation in calories and getting some bare minimums of nutrients that probably isn't an issue for most people, I think that one can't really go very far wrong.

I personally try to eat more protein/fat and fewer carbs than I once did, and for the same reason you mentioned -- I feel like a lot of carbs make me hungrier later. But, hey, as long as you can keep moderation with carbs, probably fine too.

Setting aside anything specific to the mechanism in that vehicle, I suppose that keeping one of those window-breaker tools in the dash might have been a good idea, for a car of any sort.

That being said, I don't keep one in my car.

kagis

https://forward.com/fast-forward/675325/pete-hegseth-tattoos-christian-crusades-trump/

One of Hegseth’s most prominent tattoos is a large Jerusalem cross on his chest, a symbol featuring a large cross potent with smaller Greek crosses in each of its four quadrants. The symbol was used in the Crusades and represented the Kingdom of Jerusalem that the Crusaders established.

Hegseth also has “Deus Vult,” Latin for “God wills it,” tattooed on his bicep. The phrase was used as a rallying cry for the First Crusade in 1096. It is also the closing sentence of Hegseth’s 2020 book, titled “American Crusade.”

Hegseth also has a cross and sword tattooed on his arm, which he says represents a New Testament verse. The verse, Matthew 10:34, reads, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

He later added “Yeshua,” or Jesus in Hebrew, under the sword. Hegseth told the site Media Ink in a 2020 interview that the tattoo was Jesus’ Hebrew name, which he mistakenly said was “Yehweh,” a Biblical spelling of God’s name. He told Media Ink that he got the tattoo while in Bethlehem, Jesus’ birthplace, which is located in the present-day West Bank, where he was reporting for Fox Nation.

“Israel, Christianity and my faith are things I care deeply about,” Hegseth told Media Ink.

Hegseth opposes the two-state solution and supports exclusive Israeli sovereignty in the Holy Land. He has also said the idea of rebuilding the biblical Temple on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount is a “miracle” that could happen in our lifetimes. The First and Second Temples stood on a site where the Dome of the Rock, an Islamic shrine, now stands.

Hegseth expressed these views in a 2018 speech delivered in Jerusalem at a conference organized by the right-wing Israel National News, also known as Arutz Sheva.

The speech laid out a vision of a world beset by a growing darkness that can only be saved by the United States, Israel and fellow “free people” from other countries.

The amusing thing is that OP's article didn't even get to him because it was talking about other nominations.