I didn’t know why I was seeing acorns all over my feed but I think I can hazard a guess after seeing this. I’m guessing an acorn dropped on a cop car and the pig emptied his clip into someone?
No. His partner also opened fire on the unarmed person in handcuffs because he was rolling around in the middle of the street screaming about being shot, so she said to herself “Well, he must have been shot because he’s rolling around in the middle of the street like a jackass even though he should be taking cover.”
After reading the article, apparently her actions was deemed “reasonable”? What?
Shooting an unarmed, handcuffed man because you can’t differentiate between a gun shot and an acorn, and have zero directional hearing is “REASONABLE”?
From what I read, they didn’t shoot at the unarmed suspect but at their own cop car. Stable geniuses. I can understand why the sergeant’s actions were deemed reasonable though, as she was trusting that her partner was in a life and death situation and not hesitating to back him, the truest of idiots, up.
A Florida sheriff’s deputy mistook the sound of an acorn hitting his patrol cruiser for a gunshot and fired multiple times at the SUV where a handcuffed Black man was sitting in the backseat, officials said.
I wanted to laugh at the idiot cop until I heard the victim’s very real screams thinking someone was dead because she did what is supposed to be the right thing to do by calling the cops :(
before adding the text and circles it was only 1.6kb
it’s a case where jpeg compression ironically results in the picture getting 60x larger and more blurry because everyone recompresses the images and jpeg is designed for large photos and not pixel art
Use png and IDK I don’t remember which cmd line soft but it stripped out unused colors and compressed images like that one hard.
That, without the red lines and circles, and without jpeg jitter should be like 1kb. Or less less.
Now, as an oldtimer, when you load that 1kb image up, it will still take like 640x320 bytes (it was all 8bit) so 200KB of RAM. But back in the day I guess it was more like the original GB 160x144 so 22.5KB RAM needed to show that image.
Did it work like that?
No, because cartridges didn’t have a lot of space, and the consoles didn’t have much RAM, so you used tiles. You had a tile map image, each tile was 8x8 pixels pointing to a palette (so you could use 4-bits for the color. More or less so, there were a lot of ‘modes’). Each tile had a number and your screen was some 20x18 tiles x 1 byte numbers, designing the ‘tile’ to be shown at that particular position of the screen.
All done by hardware so way fast!
To make the scrolling run you had a ‘delta’ pixels to slightly move the “screen” around.
ROM Cartridges like that were also basically as fast as RAM, and mapped into system memory, so you could reference things directly instead of having to load things to RAM first like off a disc
Yes yes! But wasn’t there some limit, like if you had a 1Mbit cartridge you still had to shuffle the data around? Or was it just a penalty to map a different chunk of memory?
Not the guy you replied too, and my memory is also fuzzy, but I always love how crazy and analog nes hardware was. Im like 70% sure that later in the nes lifespan they made it to where cartridges had more rom and could shuffle the data banks/tables around and that the nes could only process something like 32kb at a time I think? So they would just swap around the data sets depending on when they where needed.
Almost like one of those choose your own adventure books… Im probably horribly wrong in that summary and analogy though. It’s been years since I last got a refresher on nes tricks lol
In case anyone’s unclear about how someone gets to the point that they’re blasting their gun into an empty street because an acorn fell on their car, you should learn about How Cops Are Trained to Shoot You in Your Home.
TL;DW: watch it, this is important. But also they are basically traumatised into being jumpy trigger happy motherfuckers by their sociopathic training.
slrpnk.net
Active