Not true at all. Have you not seen all the NES emulators that apply anti-aliasing or other modern graphics techniques to old NES games? Completely changes the dev’s vision. You need to disable them.

Or you can just realize that modern devs are working with FSR/DLSS and tweaking it how they want. Just like they been doing with anti-aliasing. They can literally mask portions of the scene so DLSS 5 doesn’t apply to it.

Now, many games they showcased likely didn’t put much effort into tweaking their performance for DLSS 5 since it’s new and they didn’t get the chance, but newer games will use it. It’s not like raytracing and pathtracing just enhance whatever GPU driver devs want it to. The devs can control it.

Do you guys turn your graphics settings to lowest to make sure not to interfere with “artistic vision”? Or do you just not understand the technology at all?

The dev can literally control the vectors for DLSS 5 and test it for themselves until it looks how they like. If you don’t like modifying frames, you should disable all post-processing shaders and most modern anti-aliasing too.

Idgi. What word are you supposed to use when referencing females now? It’s not “woman,” unless you’re wanting to talk about gender. Or are people back to equating the two?

Using what definition of irony?

A situation is ironic if it defies expectation. Like how Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter, was killed by a stingray.

Kirk being killed by a leftist extremist, who thought he was a fascist, using a gun, is pretty much in line with how you’d expect him to die.

Maybe rift on him crossing state lines.

Very true.

Rittenhouse traveled all the way to some far off city he had no interest in. Sure, his father, grandmother, aunt, uncle, and cousin live there. Sure, he stayed with his friend who lived there. And he used to work as a lifeguard there. But otherwise, he only went there because he’s racist. That’s why he shot a couple white people.

Nothing I’ve seen would suggest that he was not willing to die for gun rights. Seems more like you cannot even comprehend someone being principled and politically consistent. Seems like projection to me.

It only qualifies as ironic if Kirk would not support being a part of the “price worth paying” for gun rights. Do you actually believe he would’ve only accepted the deaths of others and not of himself?

Rittenhouse defended himself against criminals trying to kill him, shooting one of them in the arm just as he was lowering a pistol to point it at him.

Nobody would be “celebrating” him if people didn’t try to vilify him and lock him in prison for the rest of his life.

So you want to outlaw everything designed to kill, I take it? Fine.

What about police officers that use guns to kill people who are actively attempting to kill others? If they’re disarmed, more of these people will succeed in killing innocent people, right?

I see the real reason you guys hated Kirk so much. You seem very uncomfortable confronting differing opinions. That’s not politically healthy.

How is that a deflection? Excluding gang violence from mass shootings would change the number dramatically. So how could he give an accurate answer without knowing?

The definition of “mass shooting” varies and can potentially exclude gang violence. Excluding gang violence is often useful since most people don’t care about criminals killing each other (which is most of gang shootings), and prefer to talking about innocent people who are shot.

When did he frame school shootings as good? Are you referring to when he said they were acceptable deaths if they were required to keep the 2nd amendment? Because that doesn’t make them a good thing, it makes them tolerable.

Kinda like how we tolerate ~350 toddlers dying in swimming pools every year and nobody demands that we ban swimming pools.

At least make a funny joke if you’re going to mock murder victims. “LOL HE GARGLED AND CHOKED ON HIS BLOOD” is not an attempt at dark humor, it’s just enjoying death and violence.