They didn’t, they used a sprite with a single pixel to hack together a visual tweak (that just happens to be part of Guile’s leg).
But watch the video anyway. Despite the clickbaity thumbnail (blame Google) it’s a passable account of an example of having to fix a visual bug in code after an asset lock because of how the production process of old games was structured.
Oh, so there literally is no practical reason? Just pure aesthetics, OCD-ish stuff?
So does that extend to the lid and people just say “toilet seat” as a catch-all or is there a specifically cultural predilection for the seat down/lid up configuration? Because that one looks messy to me. If the goal is for the toilet/bathroom to look tidy surely the lid down is a must, right?
You guys keep coming back with glib answers meant to comment on the question, and you’re missing the point.
I genuinely don’t know what the complaint is. I need someone to tell me that it’s about people finding it gross to be within 30 cm of something previously exposed to a naked butt cheek for cultural reasons or something. I genuinely don’t get it. Like, in practical terms. It’s not a rhetorical question.
Nobody ever cheered for Windows. I was there at the Windows 95 launch and everybody hated it and its problems were “impossible to ignore” and it was an embarrassing failure in tech circles and the BSOD was a meme.
Remind me again how that went.
Yeah, with a semi-large household there’s a fairly even chance of anybody needing or wanting any sort of configuration on the toilet. But mostly you just… you know, put the whole lid down. For one so you don’t spray your poop all over when you flush, for another because it… you know, looks nice.
I get wiping the edge if you’re a peer-stander-upper. I get making sure there’s paper left. I get cleaning the bowl (which Americans don’t get because they poo in swimming pools, as it turns out). I don’t get the argument about the toilet seat position specfiically.
Incidentally, I used to think the argument was about dudes not putting the seat up to pee and spraying their stuff all over the seat, plus the mist then leaking under and drying at the bottom, so if you don’t wipe after yourself it ends up getting all crusty under there. For the longest time I assumed the argument was that people were mad at dudes peeing witht he seat down, and only later realized that’s apparently not what people are mad about?
They care about what? What do these people want to happen that is not happening and why?
This is a conversation I’ve literally never had about an issue I’ve never heard being an issue outside of that one joke in The Big Lebowski and other US media. I genuinely don’t know what sort of cultural or personal context this “caring” is supposed to be about.
Why is this a debate? I’m always confused by this one and how everybody assumes it’s a huge argument. Why are people annoyed at either? I don’t even register what state the toilet seat is at when I arrive. I’ll just adjust it based on whatever it is I need. What is the supposed annoyance at lowering (or raising) the seat? Is that not what you do before doing your business regardless? Don’t you mostly leave the whole lid down anyway? Why is this such a cliche? I do not get it.
There are definitely ways to send backwards compatible data when required and separately support additional features in a new iteration of an API. This wouldn’t be in the top 10 backwards compatibility challenges MS has figured out.
But in any case, I don’t care if they call it XInput2 or Game Input. I just need it to support all controller features in all games. It’s a bit hard to tell whether Game Input will ever do that, but so far it seems more concerned with acting as a layer to explicitly support a bunch of different hardware, each with its own standards, than a XInput replacement for controllers. There doesn’t seem to be a concept for a “Game Input controller” there at all, actually, just supported controllers you can listen for regardless of what they’re sending through.
I guess over time if they stick with it and it does end up working as a Steam Input-style intermediary layer that just recognizes anything you’d just ship controllers that match whatever format with gyro support and Game Input-enabled games would just pick them up fine more or less universally, but that doesn’t seem to be what it does right now, or at least not something that either games or manufacturers are relying upon.
Anyway, this was interesting and informative, but I think I’m good now. I definitely don’t want to have a conversation formatted as an argument in which nobody is disagreeing with anybody else. Those are exhausting.
That’s interesting, but considering this note:
We recommend the GameInput API for all new code, regardless of the target platform, because it provides support across all Microsoft platforms (including earlier versions of Windows) and provides superior performance versus legacy APIs.
For games developed on the GDK for Xbox One, GameInput is the only input API
I’m really not sure this would do what we both want it to do. If everybody has had a GameInput version of their controller support since last-gen and we’re still getting limited to the XInput feature set I don’t think it sorts out gyro-on-Xinput at all. I am not familiar with the behind the scenes of how modern engine controller code is handled, but this sounds like maybe it’s how games with native PS controller support are doing that, but not necessarily a new standard that will allow the default XInput PC setting of new controllers to pass gyro input to games detecting them as an XInput device. I think it’s more like MS’s answer to Steam Input as an additional layer between the games and the hardware, regardless of what the hardware is using.
It does show that all the tools are in place. MS has control over all the involved APIs. They could expand the Xbox controller API feature set tomorrow, whether or not they add the hardware feature to their base controller model. They just… don’t. And Steam could deploy a Steam-independent Steam Input driver or software to just take over all controller support on a dedicated full-feature OS layer, but they also don’t (on either Windows or Linux, as far as I can tell).
Honestly, there are enough workarounds (add games as non-Steam games, use Switch modes and so on), I just bump against the edge cases of it often because I’m both a controller and handheld nerd, so I’m stuck with a GPD Win handheld that insists on injecting their internal gyro as mouse inputs, which confuses the hell out of half the games, along with a bunch of GameSir and Gullikit controllers that do weird things with gyro, like injecting it at the firmware level instead of passing it to the OS. And I mess around with enough emulators to also end up with “oh, this was on DI mode when I booted RetroArch, so now all my buttons are in the wrong places until I quit”. It’s only dumb for like ten of us… but man, is it dumb.
Yes, I’m aware, that’s why I’m calling out it’s weird that XInput doesn’t support gyro, because we’re a long way away of it being just based on Xbox controller support and a whole bunch of other controllers with a whole bunch of other features now go through it. If MS doesn’t want to add gyro that’s up to them, but Windows supporting it natively is way overdue. Of course at that point older controllers would probably need a firmware update, but hey, we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.
In practice the situation we’re having is games are defaulting to Xinput and relying on Steam Input as an intermediate layer for additional features, so the end result is that gyro is… not NOT supported, but often not acknowledged at all, so you end up with a bunch of situations where you have to config gyro manually per game as a bit of a Steam-level hack, and then your controller is all wonky anywhere other than Steam because the way Switch/DI/PS input modes get picked up in non-Steam stuff can be weird.
And it gets worse in handhelds where you’re absolutely at the mercy of how the manufacturer decided to set up their controller and gyro support, and sometimes need to do a lot of weird stuff to pass it on outside of Steam.
It’s the jankiest part of controller set up left on PC gaming, and it’s all down to this weird “mom and dad aren’t talking” dance where MS keeps pretending PC controllers are fundamentally Xbox controllers at the XInput layer and Steam is the de facto curator of the controller support but has no interest (and to be frank no expectation or need) to have their controller layer work outside their launcher.
It’s hard to fault Steam’s controller layer, but I really wish they finally found a way to parse gyro data from third party controllers without having to run them on Switch mode. That goes for Microsoft and their own drivers. At this point it’s weird to keep pretending the Windows controller APIs are supposed to work on their first party Xbox controllers only.
I’m almost entirely sure that PS4 and XOne controllers did get upgrades at some points. Definitely Switch 1 ones, which matters or not depending on how you split the gens. There were definitely revisions in older controllers, though. Some were labeled and had obvious new features, some were quieter. And PC-side drivers got updates all the time, obviously.
Also, your current gen controller will also keep working indefinitely without an update. In this case Valve is annoyed about a particular dependency where THEY need the upgrade to happen for a feature compatibility thing, but the controller proper will work if you plug it in.
I genuinely don’t know that I follow that explanation. For one thing, what reasons would there be to ban paid blind boxes, online or offline, while allowing outright games of chance with a monetary payout? In what world is a Magic the Gathering blister more of a problem (for a consenting adult, anyway) than an online casino?
But also, by the larger point you’re making it seems like you’d be fine with a government saying “porn is banned for everybody because reasons” but not with “porn is banned for kids”, at least in a scenario where that comes with age verification.
To be clear, I agree that both of those are… not good. I just don’t know that I can wrap my head around the logic of thinking the more extensive issue is more acceptable than the alternative. You could argue that the porn ban is an excuse to add mass surveillance, but at that point we’re not talking about the porn ban, we’re talking about the mass surveillance.
Oh, and for the record, there is plenty of will someone think of the children regarding loot boxes. Both on its own and bundled together with a blanket assessment that gambling is immoral and/or illegal. It’s actually a fairly close match to the porn issue, where concerns about children are being wrapped around a more targeted hostility around the concept from both sides of the political spectrum.
I… don’t know where you’re from, but actual gambling is legal here for adults. Are you suggesting that people should be able to place bets on actual sports but not buy a random loot box in a game? That seems incredibly extreme.
Which still leaves a bunch of other stuff people have used kids to attack on all sides of multiple political aisles, but hey, if that’s the one you want to caveat I’m happy to flag how weird the caveat is.
Yeah, I read about some of the tightening at the time and I’m not disputing that there are technical ways of… you know, making your country’s Internet a mostly separate bubble for non-techie users.
The point is it’s both hard and extremely invasive to get there. You can’t just wish upon a star for VPNs to not be used for a particular application without going to those extremes. Especially if the thing you’re trying to prevent is people watching Superman two weeks early or wanking to a mainstream porn page.
It’s kind of unfortunate how much this has been encouraged by petty online fights. People were very excited when “will somebody think of the children” was applied to, say, some social media content or gaming loot boxes because the Internet did not like those things, so they were very happy to ignore the pre-existing parental control devices and request blanket bans. Then people remembered that a bunch of old, prudish people on both sides of the political aisle don’t like porn and it was too late.
Man, people love the “they first came for” argument online and I should have guessed the first time it really pays off in the 21st century it’d include the absolute most depressing things possible instead.
Anyway, this is bad and I don’t like it, but UK politics are almost as bad as US politics, so I’m happy to let both stew in their own cautionary tale juices.
I guess that works for VPN services offering servers outside the country. That’s not what VPNs are, though, and you still can’t ban the concept of VPNs having a connection outside the country. VPN software is available open source and all it takes for it to connect abroad is my phone with a VPN connection to my home computer being abroad.
I mean, Russia (and even China) still have people using VPNs all over the place. This (and a lot of the push for age verification and comms backdoors) reeks of barely understanding the desired result and entirely misunderstanding how the tech works.
See, there’s a lot of online chatter about how much sense Linux folder structures make, with everything grouped by type all over the filesystem. And then this happens.
DOS 5.1 folder structure or bust, I say. Home directories are evil, if your filename doesn’t fit in 8.3 characters you’re doing it wrong and if you can’t find it with dir . /w it shouldn’t exist.
How do you “ban VPNs”? That’s not how software works, and VPNs are… you know, a key part of a bunch of online infrastructure. I get that they mean “ban them to bypass restrictions”, but the entire point of a VPN is you can’t tell from the outside what it’s being used for. You may as well ban thinking about butterflies. You can write it down, but you can’t enforce it.
There’s only one mention of the word “slop” attributed to Nadella in the entire piece. It’s this:
Now, that’s entirely meaningless corpospeak, but it’s also very clearly not “Nadella wants you to stop saying slop”.
But the article needed bait and nobody reads past the clickbait headline anymore. The intellectual laziness fuelling the slop isn’t exclusive of AI usage.
We suck at this.
I propose an oath, ok? You commit to not using GenAI in 2026… and also to not EVER comment on an article or social media post you haven’t read in full.
Deal?