for me, it is a craze because the food is not tested enough for its marketed effects.
sure, many other people also claim to feel its benefits but the numbers just ain't enough, for me at least.
then again, not all people are the same. you can give it a shot for science. nothing wrong with trying.
Most people prefer more fps over image quality, so minor artifacting from DLSS is preferable to the game running much slower with cleaner image quality.
I don't think we're not much different in this portion. AI upscale is passable enough that gamers will choose it. If presented with a better, non-artifacting option, gamers will choose that since the goal is performance and not AI. If the stat is from PS data, and not from a poll, I think it just strengthens that users want performance more.
There will never be a set performance target again.
It's not that there's no set performance target. The difference is merely one, on the CounterStrike era, vs. many, now. Now, there's more performance targets for PC than Counter Strike days. Games just can't keep up. Saying "there will never be a set performance target" is just washing hands when a publishers/ directors won't set directions and priorities which performance point to prioritize.
It might be that your point is optimizing for scalability, and that is fine too.
oh nose
everybody knows the bestest people tell him his strongman smells like, very strong... man
the not-so-bestest people, they just can't take it.
the premise seems flawed, i think.
i feel what he's saying is: we suck optimizing gfx performance now because gamers deem ai upscale quality as passable
this feels opposite to what the ps poll says that gamers enable performance mode more because the priority is more stable frames than shiny anti aliasing/post processing.
nuclear samyang buldak (spicy noodles).
they have to eat it japanese style where they have to slurp. i think the sounds would be too tempting asmr.
yes, you are!
you should also ask chatgpt that after correcting it for a better effect.
fair point, and I totally agree. calling people names they do not consent is crossing the line.
in the medical side of reality, the target of this is never the person but the situation or the problem in question.
for the other side, the target is never clear and would mostly cause confusion.
pretty sure this is chatGPT mannerism
Yes, do not use it.
Language is naturally evolving and changing. I used to use it before because there was a legit biological/ medical/ psychiatrical usage of it (short for "retarded mental growth"). Now, that legitness got buried in the common hate speech we knew today.
To avoid confusion, better just let it go. OR, use it only in convo with a group of med- /bio- nerds.
i just auto accept that part. npc is lyf.
a bigger effort is for him to kneel (and get up).
he weighs more than an extra finger would add.