Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

That last one is incorrect--  Clinton is NOT an airhead.  A conniving bitch, sure-- but not an airhead.

She simply knows to read the crowd, and say what is most effective to gaining its favor, at any given time. 



I will meet the bias you demonstrated, if you will also meet the bias I just demonstrated in your appraisal.

[TD1]

Not a bias! Just a misunderstanding of your point.

Let it be duly noted that 'airhead lusting for power' was in fact intended to be 'conniving bitch lusting for power'.


 

[wierd]

Alright then--  I would qualify Sanders as "Wistful idealist, naive to all the consequences of that idealism."  and Trump as "Perniciously deceitful, and dangerous potential despot."


Of the three, Sanders is "The most sensible" (and if you note my now several hours old edit, I noted that "Truly sensible" candidates never happen here now.), Clinton is "Silly" (because she only really has her own interests in mind, with concessions in the public interest being an incidental), and Trump as "Very Silly" because you have to completely dissociate from reality to endorse him.

[Rockeater]

I had a bunch of things I wanted to do today, and the time to do it, but I wasted it on nothing important, it's really annoying.

[JoshuaFH]

I paid a visit to the hospital (my former workplace) the other day to give blood. Saw some familiar faces, and it dawned on me how much I miss everyone there.

[MaxTheFox]

Your condensation of policies:

Sanders: Fixing wealth disparity.
Trump: Nazi who wants to MAGA.
Clinton: Airhead lusting for power.

My condensation of policies:

Sanders: Airhead lusting for power.
Trump: Airhead lusting for power.
Clinton: Airhead lusting for power.
Let's face it... (Though I'd still take Bernie because I agree with him somewhat more than the others, politically).

But honestly, as wack the American political system is, at least it's not Russia which is a de-facto dictatorship. I'd prefer to live in America than in this hellhole. Preferably somewhere in the north, for the cold.

[JoshuaFH]

I'm always startled by how quickly I explode in anger. I finally resumed Nier: Automata to get the last ending, and I accidentally selected start game instead of loading up a chapter, which trapped me in the opening sequence, and I just went off, mashing my keyboard to try to alt+f4 out as quickly as possible, but apparently I also hit a sequence of buttons to instantly turn off my computer, so I had to wait even longer to wait for it to start up again.

I started up the game on my friend's strong recommendation, but personally I found the gameplay kinda trivial and unsatisfying, and the story dripping with the kind of faux-intellectualism that is used to trick normies into thinking it's smart. That kind of shallowness ran down my patience with it really quick, so even taking the time to get that ending, I was really sour and upset afterwards.

Maybe I'm just feeling really lonely cooped up here in my apartment alone, and that's making me irate. All my life I presumed myself an introvert; going on the introvert/extrovert theory of temperament, which I personally think is too simplistic but moving on; that I always thought myself an introvert but the reality was that I'm an extrovert, but I was born into such a miserable circumstance in life that made socialization hard, and isolation frequent, as I grew up; so life as an adult is plagued with chronic awkwardness and an insatiable longing for the kind of companionship and affection that I never got as a child.

Not that I don't have friends, I do, but a part of me questions if the friendship is real, of what the actual qualia of friendship is... if I'm actually their friend, or if the many defects in my heart forbid true companionship, guaranteeing my own loneliness. Or put simply, I'm just a bad friend, and there's nothing I can do about it.

[Egan_BW]

You dare insult the game with the sad hot robots?
Pistols at dawn, sir.

[heydude6]

I started up the game on my friend's strong recommendation, but personally I found the gameplay kinda trivial and unsatisfying, and the story dripping with the kind of faux-intellectualism that is used to trick normies into thinking it's smart.

Honestly, I feel kind of the same. What happens on the third play through is kind of insane though. If anything is going to redeem the game for you, it's that. You have to see it to believe it.

[JoshuaFH]

I started up the game on my friend's strong recommendation, but personally I found the gameplay kinda trivial and unsatisfying, and the story dripping with the kind of faux-intellectualism that is used to trick normies into thinking it's smart.

Honestly, I feel kind of the same. What happens on the third play through is kind of insane though. If anything is going to redeem the game for you, it's that. You have to see it to believe it.

That's kinda the problem though...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The game's idea of 'new game +' or 'playthroughs' is obviously misleading. They aren't, definitionally. It's just chapters of one big game, and that the game insinuates otherwise is a red flag for me.

I really expect more out of Platinum than just renaming already established storytelling conventions like the concept of 'chapters', and then pretending like it's something new. They're even called chapters when you unlocked chapter unlock. Very disappointed.

[methylatedspirit]

I tested a Ryzen 5 4500U laptop and compared it with my own. I'm disappointed with my own laptop now, and if there wasn't a GTX 1650 in there as well, I would've called it a ripoff. I'm getting strong 'I wish I waited' syndrome. At least my laptop is substantially more powerful than my old PC, which was an i5-4460 and an R7 260X 1 GB. I'm still disappointed, though.

Spoiler: My own laptop, i5-9300H with an undervolt, long-term power limit set to 70W, thermal paste replaced (Rated TDP: 45W) (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: The Ryzen 5 4500U, completely bone stock (Rated TDP: 15W) (click to show/hide)

An i5-9300H, tuned to extract as much performance out of it as possible, gets beaten (or at least matched) by a stock Ryzen 5 4500U. And the Ryzen was constrained to a maximum of 25W (15W sustained), while the i5 was given the freedom to go up to 70W, and didn't even hit that limit (Cinebench R20 floated around 50W). They're slightly less than a year apart, yet my laptop gets beaten by this thing, a processor intended for normal laptops. This isn't even the right comparison to make; I should've used a Ryzen 5 4600H, which would've run circles around my poor i5.

Is this what peak competition looks like?

[Reelya]

You need to make sure you're comparing apples and apples there. That i5 has 4 cores whereas the Ryzen has 6 cores. Per-core-per-clock they basically have the same scores

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-9300H+%40+2.40GHz&id=3448
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+4500U&id=3702

At 2.4 GHz both have near identical single-threaded performance, but the Ryzen has 50% more cores and 50% more total performance. A better comparison is to this 6-core version of the i5. This came out in the same quarter as that Ryzen and has very similar specs. It runs a little hotter however but that's down to AMD outsourcing their fabs to TMSC who have a smaller fab process rather than any underlying betterness of the AMD actual designs.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-10600T+%40+2.40GHz&id=3834

You also have to be aware that cinebench and similar may not be equivalent to real-world workloads. Not every app can even use 6 cores, and also even then bottlenecks like disk, memory and video access speeds mean you're not going to utilize all of that.

[Il Palazzo]

Long hair and power tools don't mix well.

[methylatedspirit]

-snip-

The successor to the i5-9300H is the i5-10300H. The i5-10600T is intended for desktops according to Intel themselves, and the final letter "T" (low-power desktop) clearly marks it as different from the ones that end in "H" (high-power laptop). They (i5-9300H and i5-10600T) occupy a different market segment and should not be compared.

I don't think it matters that the i5 has 4 cores and the Ryzen, 6. Let me put it this way: they're not even meant to compete with each other (one is for standard laptops, the other for high-power laptops), market-wise and the lower-power one won. They occupy the same performance segment (i5 and Ryzen 5), so it's not a terrible comparison to make; if anything, the Ryzen's at a disadvantage because it's a lower-power part. Maybe AMD's part isn't inherently better, but that process node advantage makes it more power-efficient. It's an impressive showing from the Ryzen, nonetheless.

That shows it's faster and more efficient than the i5, considering that my i5 is basically allowed to draw as much power as it wants in my testing, yet the Ryzen ends up with higher or at least equivalent scores relative to the i5 despite a smaller power budget. The i5 would lose even harder if the i5 was running stock; something like 1600 points in Cinebench R20 instead of 2050 points. This i5 is literally the best-case scenario, and it still lost against an apparently "smaller" target.

For an apples-to-apples comparison, let's compare the Ryzen 5 4600H against the i5-10300H. They're in the same power category, the same performance segment, and were released about the same time. They cost roughly the same. The number of cores shouldn't matter, given that these two are meant to compete with each other. You can buy gaming laptops with either an i5-10300H or a Ryzen 5 4600H.

i5-10300H: 8593 points (2663 single-thread) in Passmark's CPU benchmark.

Ryzen 5 4600H: 14949 points (2497 single-thread) in Passmark's CPU benchmark.

Doing 74% better than your competitor in multi-thread with like-for-like parts isn't a fluke, that's a kill shot. Maybe the Zen 2 arch of the Ryzen isn't inherently better than the Skylake-derived arch of the Intel, but TSMC's smaller process (vs Intel's 14nm) means that in power-constrained situations (such as in laptops), the Intel gets completely destroyed by the Ryzen because it's able to derive more performance from the same amount of power. The single-thread's slightly worse (the Ryzen gets 93% of the single-thread score of the Intel), but at that point, it's nitpicking.

I think it's worth mentioning that the Ryzen 5 4600H (and all 4000-series APUs) has only 8 PCIe 3.0 lanes instead of the full 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes of the Intel, so it's not like it's perfect. With higher-end GPUs, that might present a bandwidth bottleneck, though from this Techspot article about PCIe bandwidths and how it impacts RTX 3080 performance, it shouldn't be much of a bottleneck for today's games even at x8 3.0, and that's for a desktop 3080. That's for gaming performance, though. Anything bandwidth-sensitive might see a substantial decrease in performance, though I can't think off the top of my head anything that would rely so much on PCIe bandwidth. I know some that rely on VRAM bandwidth, but that's a whole different can of worms.

[methylatedspirit]

I've been trying to plot out my sexuality by zapping it with homoerotic content. As of now, I've basically identified it as "biromantic heterosexual", though "panromantic" is theoretically possible (the romance part of it appears to be gender-independent), but I have zero data (i.e. hadn't had any crushes on nonbinary peeps), so the jury's still out on that. There's some other details there, but I think I've mapped out a decent chunk of it.

The thing that's been upsetting me is that I basically have no clue what (romantic/sexual) love is. Like, there's romantic/sexual desire, which my brain tentatively defines as 'the desire to be with someone', and 'the desire to have sex with someone' respectively. I have no clue if that's right, that's just what my analysis of my dataset (the things that I know) says it is. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

But, like, what is love? I think I've asked the same question before, but now that I've been mulling over my sexuality, it's strange that I haven't the slightest clue about love. That's a bit of an error on my part, no? Imagine trying to describe your video game preferences to someone who doesn't have a concept of what games even are. There's a missing dependency. It's something that eludes any form of definition, which sucks for me because I very much enjoy things that are well-defined, well-behaved, and well... love isn't. It probably doesn't help that I've not been in a relationship of that kind ever, so I have no data on that either.

Even with the "lower" case of desire, it's very poorly behaved. There's no consistency. I can identify traits in the people I like, but even if you acted exactly as that set of 'liked' traits, that's no guarantee that I will like you romantically/sexually. Small changes in the (billions-of-parameters-long) parameter-set of a person do not correspond to small changes in their attractiveness. There is no pattern to any of it. In other words, I do not (and very likely cannot) know why I have crushes on people. It just... happens, and I just don't know why. All I can say is what is likely to get you liked.

I have little-to-no data for any of this, so the error bars for any analysis that comes from that range from gigantic to infinite. I so want them to be smaller. Or maybe I'm looking at it wrong; I'm looking at love as if it's statistical. That approach appears to work for general-purpose social interaction (and even then, a huge dose of "just act natural", "take a wild guess" and "hell if I know" is needed), but maybe it fails to converge on an answer for love. And 'general-purpose social interaction' needed 3 years of training to start bearing fruit (that is to say, I made friends), so even if convergence for love is possible, it'll take a while.