I’ve been playing 90’s Nintendo games like Chrono Trigger because I was too busy in the 90’s to do anything other than PC gaming. Now I feel like I’m still missing out because I’m playing them on my collection of retro Handhelds like Retroid, Anbernic and Miyoo Mini all of which are LCD and don’t have the horsepower to do full crt emulation.

That pixel art on CRT is amazing. I had no idea. I started computing on CRT (technically my first computer class was on punch cards) and always hated it for the misconvergence and geometry distortion.

It’s why I said kironide mineral shot. That’s from the TOS episode Plato’s Children. One shot and you have more Force power than the greatest Force user.

I honestly can’t tell if he’s serious or trolls for fun. I looked at his other posts and he does the same childish hostility everywhere.

He did a comparison of products ending with a recommendation. That’s a review.

I don’t know why you can’t accept that.

Picard could take Vader easily. One kironide mineral shot would neutralize Vader’s powers. Then Picard’s fencing technique vs Vader’s clumsy robotic slashes would have Picard killing Vader in a fraction of a second.

You don’t watch all of his videos which is why you have the wrong idea. It’s the 2024 video where he reviewed Tru Tone.

If products are compared in detail and a suggestion to buy is given, it’s a review.

It doesn’t matter what you think the channel is supposed to be. What matters is the content.

At this point you are nitpicking and being pedantic to attempt to “win” an agurment not being had.

You wrote 3 paragraphs to avoid admitting that despite my writing about his detergent video, you responded with his dishwasher video because you haven’t watched all his content!

Comparing samples with an independent lab isn’t a review? Come on. As I already said just because most of his content is “talking head”, doesn’t mean he can’t recommend products. Which he clearly has done.

To make you feel better, this was the remote operator, that makes the robot appear autonomous, removing their headset before handing control off to someone else to keep the lie going.

The problem with old DVD recorders is realtime mpeg2 was bad. And the result is a lossy file that will get worse again when converted to mpeg4.

Although most people can’t see the difference. I doubt I could tell the difference actually watching rather than examining frames despite my obsession over getting the best possible quality.

His dish washing video went to great lenghts to explain how something works

That’s a different video. He recently did another video of detergent and why his brand of detergent that he is selling for charity is better than pods.

Back to commenting on the content,

You just commented on the content. You can’t have it both ways.

You comment on the content by claiming he gave a suggestion.

A suggestion in a scientific paper isn’t anything you pull out of your ass.

Where’s the option for whatever I’m wearing during the day?

They were $500 20 years ago. So it’s a great value at $250.

I used a Viewcast Osprey to get decent captures a few years ago. 25 years ago I was all about the BT 878 capture chips.

The problem with the DV he recommends is that while it’s better than the trash USB converters, DV introduces its own lossiness because it’s like a form of Mjpeg. You also want an svhs player with svideo out even though the tapes aren’t svhs to keep luminance and chroma separate during capture. Otherwise you get dot crawl and other crosstalk artifacts.

His dish washing detergent video went to great lengths to create experimental comparisons to show his brand of detergent is better than pods. He has done experiments with other products too like dehumidifiers.

You have been arguing by trying to have it both ways.

You claim the author gave a suggestion of what is inside black holes. I asserted that the suggestion doesn’t meet the criteria of a suggestion for a scientific article and therefore isn’t a suggestion.

You then respond with the equivalent of, “I’m not the author and not defending the content.”

This is Space, not Astrology. The criteria for article content is higher.

You don’t have an argument so you deflect and insult.

The author said, “maybe it’s different inside”. My restating the author is not an accusation that you wrote the article.

“So you are back to pretending I wrote the article.”

Nothing I wrote implied that.

The part where you try to cover up your reading comprehension

That’s not your claim. You said I went back to saying you are the author.

Show it or apologize.