basically right after its discovery, since it wasn't consistant whatsoever. It was just pure luck any nothing more, especially when not on 4:3
Well, if something could be proven to be consistent rather than based of randomness then it should be allowed.
yes. but nobody ever could
Alright, I'll probably test this over the weekend a bit.
Probably using both PC and original hardware.
If it's consistent on both then a ruling should be held to add it to the allowed list.
Technically, to __prove__ its consistency, you would have to infinite test it 😛
Say that to the ones designing your PC and Phone who can accurately predict the movements of electrons to make any of this possible.
The only thing one can know 100% guaranteed is that knowing something 100% guaranteed is impossible. But using excessive testing and simple logic one can inch closer to some sort of truth.
Yeah, difference bt confidence and proof ...
Well, proof doesn't require 100%
I you think of weather something is or isn't as a scale. You collect evidence on both sides of it and then ones it's all there you weigh it all and try to see if you can find some sort of conclusion. The collections of evidence would be proof.
For example. It's possible to prove a link between electrical signals and heat building up. You'd get quite convincing proof even. Is it technically possible that the opposite is true in the infinite of the universe? Sure. But that really doesn't matter. Proof isn't really about absolute truth. It's about finding out which side is the most logical.
You can have proof that someone did something they actually didn't.
It really depends on the topic. If you want to know if a space rocket will explode when leaving the Earth, you don't really want to base only on logic and risk millions to "logic". You want a proof that every single segment of your logic is correct. Of course, most of the time, this is not the case and logic is enough.
Ad you said, there are a ton of things we don't know and probably can't know.
Well, having something be truly correct is not worth worrying about. Because that's impossible.
What you do is you try and improve your chances with logic.
So proves depend on our logic which could be approximate
Yeah, what we'd do to test the setup is look for evidence pointing towards it not being consistent. If we can't do that. Then that would be considered proof that it is.
GeneralXXLXXL 2XXL 3Olympic GamesXXL SpeedrunningXXL Romastered SpeedrunningXXL 2 SpeedrunningXXL 2 Remaster SpeedrunningOlympic Games SpeedrunningRecent StratsOther Asterix GamesOther GamesAsterix MediaSpoofy GoofsCreative ShackVideosHelpBot SpamRetro GamesModdingStreamsPatchesModsToolsResourcesDownloadsWikiUnfair XXLCaesar's ChallengeIntroductionsVC TextAnnouncementsVillage GatesRulesFeedback ☰