The saga continues (Oh, Microsoft)

On the quest to make my PC all parts ninja I bought a 240Hz variable-refresh-rate monitor. Considering that when you plug a monitor into your PC it does a little handshake to tell the PC which resolutions and refresh rates it supports, you would think that Windows 10 would be smart enough to realise that you wish to use the highest and fastest refresh rate your monitor allows.

 

 

Apparently Microsoft doesn't think so, because your ninja monitor will be set to 60Hz by default. For many less tech-savvy users they will be placebo'd into thinking that their high-refresh-rate monitor is amazing - while only gaming at 60Hz. Even if you have a frame counter stating that you're hitting 200+ FPS (frames per second), if Windows 10 hasn't been enabled to utilize 240Hz, you will still only be playing at 60 FPS. And if you look at your display settings, there isn't any clear indicator of what refresh rate your monitor is running because Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, decided that displaying the refresh rate of your monitor was too technical - just because. For those who are wondering, here are the steps you need to walk through to get to the monitor refresh rate:

• Open Settings → Display Settings
• Click on Advanced Display Settings (scroll down)
• Click on Display Adapter properties
• Click on Monitors tab
• View/Adjust the refresh rate from the drop-down

 

It's only in that last step that you can even see which refresh rate you're currently using. This seems so ... unnecessary and, really, it is. I don't know of anyone who would use a lesser refresh rate for their target resolution so why does Windows 10 default to 60Hz in the first place? I guess a few years back 60Hz monitors were the standard but as we all know the times, they are a-changing and it seems clear that Microsoft hasn't yet got the memo.

 

twitch triggered

Ever since I was a young lad I was one of those people who enjoyed going to the arcades to watch people play fighting games well. I vicariously played the game the way it was meant to be played - even if my skills weren't quite as stratospheric. At the downfall of the venerable arcade scene (circa 2000's) we all moved indoors to play multiplayer games - but I at least still wished for a medium where I could watch people play games competently. And this was where twitch stepped in. And all was good in this world - up until now.

Perhaps it was the level of moochers or perhaps it is the ever-driving desire to wring every last dollar out of the unwashed masses but Twitch in recent weeks has made a serious misstep. In the early days it was relatively easy to watch a Twitch channel and get some instant entertainment - and possibly a few ads every few hours or so. This is no longer the case. Now, if I click on an unsubscribed (i.e. unpaid) channel I am greeted with an unskippable 15-second ad (or even five ads back-to-back) before I have even seen one second of this channel. This is incredibly alienating and, at least based upon my viewing habits, motivates me to avoid watching Twitch (for the most part.) 

It really disappoints me - and I would presume the content creators - that Twitch has turned to this model for making teh moneys. But, rather than simply complaining, I would suggest a few different options which may prove more palatable:

• Have the heavy-handed ad break 15 minutes into previewing the channel - that way at least you get to see whether you like the current stream
  
• Integrate the ad break into a break-out panel - rather than overriding the live stream (and missing out on clutch plays)
• Buffer any lost content while the ad is playing and then allow the viewer to fast-forward (at their own volition) or continue watching from the buffered offset
  
• Allow the channel creator full control of when ads are shown with, possibly, a minimum ad quota on an hourly basis
• Provide the Twitch viewer an x-minute window of free viewing before forcing an ad break - ideally with some kind of count-down

Dependent upon Twitch's desires to maximise ROI any of these options are better than the current solution they have in place. Unless Twitch is very careful they will lose their audience (and their content creators) to better solutions which don't have heavy-handed revenue models which penalise new viewers and dissuade you from discovering new content. 

 You have been warned, Twitch. You have been warned.

 

How not to fix racism

So, I came across an article which points out that one of the Microsoft gaming heads stated that there needs to be more black leaders ... whatever that means. My first thought, even before I even read the article was, aren't you missing the point? How exactly do you fix this 'racist gaming industry' by simply appointing a person not based upon their abilities but the colour of their skin?

Now, before you think I'm some kind of bigoted white supremacist, don't you think I have at least an iota of a point? I'd like to think I would never judge a person based upon their outward appearance but rather their actions. That is not to say that I haven't prejudged - I am human after all - but at least on a few occasions my initial prejudice has proven to be incorrect. We as a society have yet to reach the zenith of treating all humans as equal (until their actions say otherwise.) It is unfortunate that in many circumstances we have yet to even strive towards removing these biases - but that doesn't excuse taking the opposite approach of promoting <under-represented minority> for the sole reason that they are an <under-represented minority.> This is working under the misconception that every gender, race, creed and so forth should be uniformly represented in their institution ... which is fundamentally wrong.

Dave Chappelle, you genius

If you still remain unconvinced, I will point you to mathematics as your source for what should be deemed a truly unbiased representation. In mathematics, if you were to graph an unweighted and truly random distribution, you would note that with a reasonable sample size there would be perceived clumping and outliers - that is, certain areas of the graph would be perceived as being 'unfairly weighted' in comparison to other sparser sections. This is to be expected. What would not be expected, however, would be a uniform straight line distribution - this, contrarily speaking, would be perceived as a non-uniform distribution. That is not to say that it isn't possible - just that the chances of a completely balanced distribution being graphed from randomly-generated values would be astronomically unlikely.

 

By taking a truly unbiased perspective and employing, promoting and befriending based upon a persons' actions, you will truly reach a moment in humanity where biases can be set aside. That is the future I look forward to ... but I don't think I'll see in my lifetime.