Print

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

[Reelya]

You missed what MaximumSpin was getting at. By allowing horizontal fingers to count differently to vertical ones, you get base 3. 3^5 = 243 per hand, or counting up to 242 including zero. Each finger would have the state of  pointing up, pointing out, or curled down. Gets a bit hard to hold the positions mind you, while the 31 one is relatively easy.

[Yoink]

I'm surprised that porn sites haven't recently been flooded with a new genre of porn that is basically "BASIC SOCIAL INTERACTION POV".   
I'd watch the hell out of that. Anyone with lots of footage of their past parties/gigs/camping trips etcetera is basically sitting on a goldmine these days. Assuming the other folks in the video(s) would consent to their interaction with friends being whored out to lonesome strangers, I suppose... hmm, maybe this idea isn't as brilliant as I first thought.   

Maybe folks in COVID-free areas could organise get-togethers specifically for the purpose of streaming to the world? I dunno.   



Another genius idea that has been bubbling around in my head for ages: a double-barreled shotgun with a foregrip... that is actually the grip of another (possibly shortened) double-barreled shotgun! Boom! A quad-barreled shotgun!
Of course, with fancy automatic shotguns being a thing I don't imagine this would have much actual use outside of, like, self-defense or crime, but... maybe after the world ends we'll all be huddled around, welding or bolting shotguns together into a weapon to rule the wasteland. *shrug*   

[Reelya]

i think there are already millions of hours of footage of shows that cater to that: pretty much 80% of broadcast television is nothing but that. You get those 3 hour morning shows, daytime talk shows and night-time chat shows. They have that genre sewn up. It's the same reason morning drive-time radio is formatted with multiple hosts. The person driving is alone so that provides random chatter.

Whether more of that stuff moves to a pure online format remains to be seen. I'd argue that twitch type streams kinda already fit that, but it's the fans hanging out with the streamer. However most of that is structured around a single talking-head as are most youtube things.

[Il Palazzo]

Take up cycling, they said. Who needs skin anyway, they said.
In retrospect, I should have paid more attention to the second part.

[Naturegirl1999]

Take up cycling, they said. Who needs skin anyway, they said.
In retrospect, I should have paid more attention to the second part.

Who uh...who said this to you?

[Il Palazzo]

You know. Them. The flayed pushbikers.

[Yoink]

i think there are already millions of hours of footage of shows that cater to that: pretty much 80% of broadcast television is nothing but that. You get those 3 hour morning shows, daytime talk shows and night-time chat shows. They have that genre sewn up. It's the same reason morning drive-time radio is formatted with multiple hosts. The person driving is alone so that provides random chatter.

Whether more of that stuff moves to a pure online format remains to be seen. I'd argue that twitch type streams kinda already fit that, but it's the fans hanging out with the streamer. However most of that is structured around a single talking-head as are most youtube things.

Hmmmmm, that's really not the same, at least to me. People sitting around on a panel or something talking to the camera has very little resemblance to actual, ordinary social interaction. Those morning shows are just plain awful, anyway. Though admittedly a DIY talkshow panel could be an amusing setting for a sesh, especially with my Seinfeld-loving friends. We the Merv Griffin show up in this bish. I'm gonna note that idea down.       

I was thinking more like, gritty found-footage of a party or w/e. Maybe with less drug abuse to keep it, well, not "family friendly" but not legally incriminating, either.   

Podcasts also fill that 'social chatter' role pretty well, I reckon, though that's usually not so personalized. Y'could try ASMR, maybe? That tends to be pretty personal/intimate without being lewd. I wonder if viewership on ASMR is up.

Podcasts are ableist. So is ASMR, for that matter - both just remind me how deaf I am.    
Seriously though podcasts don't really appeal to me. Not sure how much of that is actual disinterest in the format and how much is frustration that I struggle to hear shit and they never have subtitles. Though I do watch a fair few LPs that are basically just people talking shit whilst playing games, so... I don't know.   

As for ASMR, that just creeps me out. Also I don't think it has much/anything in common with actual conversation?    
If somebody started talking to me in that weird kinda sotto voce outside of a lewd context I would probably smack them.   

Besides, ideally you need the video accompaniment of whatever social interaction you're trying to immerse yourself in.   
I might dig up that Party Vibez music video with the GoPro on a beer bong. Now that's what I'm talkin' about.   

[methylatedspirit]

Because I wanted to know how much overclocking headroom each generation of Intel processor has, I pulled some data from hwbot.org, and made this chart. I don't know where else to put it, so into the Random thoughts thread it goes. I wanted to include a series of processors with roughly the same architecture here, so I picked the long stretch from Core 2 to Comet Lake, just because it was easier to research, since all these processors had actual model names, and had a clear progression by generation. I'm picking the highest-end processors within their respective generation, just because it's easy to find the highest-end ones within a generation. (Fun fact: this represents a 14-year span, from 2006 to 2020)



I don't know what make of this thing. When I came up with the idea, I was hoping that it would be an easy progression, rising upwards as the generations go by, but the truth seems to be more ambiguous. Sure, it rises from the X6800 to the i7-2700K, but the rest of the chart just goes up and down, with seemingly a slight trend upwards in overclocked clock speed. I suppose that when people say that Sandy Bridge (represented by the i7-2700K here) is legendary, this is at least vaguely what they mean? It has the greatest overclocking headroom of all the processors here, and it's almost on par with an i9-10900K with its overclocked clock speeds.

[dragdeler]

-

[methylatedspirit]

I feel like intel is hitting a point of diminishing returns

Would you believe me if I said that Intel's been using the same Skylake architecture and the same 14nm process since 2015? 'Cause that's what they've been doing. There's a reason why people joke about "14+++++++++++++ nm", it's because their 10nm process doesn't work as well as they want it to (something about not enough yield, I think), so they can't manufacture anything (with a few exceptions) on that process. They've been forced to optimize their 14nm as far as it will go, while they're being left in the dust by TSMC (who manufacture AMD's 3000-series CPUs) with their 7nm process.

Since they're not changing the architecture either, (though that will change with next generation's Rocket Lake, which will use the Willow Cove arch, but will still use the same old 14nm process) the only option if they are to remain competitive with AMD is to push for greater and increasingly-ludicrous clock speeds. And considering that 'pushing for higher clock speeds' (at the cost of insane power consumption/heat production) is also what happened with the Pentium 4, there's a comparison to be made with the 10th and 9th gen and the Pentium 4, especially the incredibly hot Prescott arch. Not a good look, if you ask me. Granted, the Pentium 4 was made with the sole purpose of hitting high clock speeds, so the intent is different, but it certainly looks the same from the outside.

apparantly the i9-9900k can get scary hot too in some scenarios.

And you'd be right. The i9-9900K (and i9-10900K) consume more power (and dissipate more heat) than the Ryzen 9 3950X, despite the latter having 6 more cores than the former.

(Image in spoiler might not work, here's the source)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Reelya]

It's pushing the clock speeds high out of the gate coupled with "binning" chips differently. So those top I9s just happen to be the chips from the foundry that managed to be stable at the higher speeds, but they always leave a little wiggle room to be safe so that customers aren't getting random stability problems. The chips that weren't quite as stable get labelled as the I9-9900K rather than the I9-10900K, which explains why the overclocking room on both is near identical.

Really these are just pre-overclocked. Which isn't in itself a bad thing, as long as you're getting value for the money, but could be misleading since they're pushing it to the point of needing so much more power. If they had instead clocked the I9 lower, used a smaller cooling setup, then people had bought the chip, overclocked it and then threw a huge cooling system at it, you'd be at the same exact point anyway. So it might make sense to just give someone a chip and say "here's your chip, it's already overclocked as high as we can stably go, and if you don't want that, why didn't you just buy a different chip to start with" rather than shipping chips that aren't clocked as high as they can actually go.

[methylatedspirit]

If Intel were honest about what they were selling, and didn't push the clock speeds of their processors as high as they did, I don't think they would've done as "well" (not great, but at least they aren't completely done for) as they did. Intel's current marketing is that they're selling "gaming" processors, that you can get the best possible performance out of games by buying their processors. Which is true, I'll give them that, but it's only a 15% improvement on average over the competition (the Ryzen 3900X, specifically). I'm fairly sure a decent GPU overclock can provide the same benefit, and that's free, but I digress. If they didn't do what they did, they would've lost the only advantage they had.

And now that AMD's on the warpath, trying to take back both the OEM desktop and the laptop spaces with their Ryzen 4000 APUs (no word yet on the Ryzen 4000 CPUs, but if they can make good on their promises, they stand a chance to beat Intel), it's important that Intel holds on to whatever advantage they do have, even if it means they're bullshitting their way through it while they try to get their next architecture and process node(s) in order.

[Reelya]

If you look at Intel's revenue vs AMD's revenue, that's $72 billion vs $6.7 billion, it's apples and oranges. So you think, how can AMD do it, it's a david and goliath battle here and Intel should be crushing them with economies of scale and process optimization. However then you realize that all AMD's chips are actually fabbed by TSMC.

So the numbers make more sense when you realize that TSMC has a revenue of $35 billion with many clients, in other words costs and benefits are spread around to everyone who works with TSMC when they invest in process improvements. The AMD thing is just a sideline for TSMC, not the main game. They're pumping out billions of ARM chips, that's where the focus on low-power, speed and small size has been, but these just happen to benefit AMD too: low-power and compact cores means you can cram way more in there, so AMD is benefiting from TSMC's investment in cutting-edge mobile CPUs, indirectly.

That's the real story here, not that AMD themselves are somehow technologically ahead of Intel. AMD is ahead because TSMC invested in tech for better mobile CPUs. AMD cramming more cores in isn't actually a choice here btw, they had to do that to leverage the advantages of the TSMC processes.

[methylatedspirit]

I realize I'm being imprecise with my words. When I said that AMD might beat Intel, I meant that AMD might release processors that are better in benchmarks than Intel. I'm speaking within the extremely narrow context of what I'll dub the 2016-202X Processor Wars. You're speaking of the big picture, which I don't feel qualified to speak on. I simply don't know enough to argue that point, but I'll accept it.

What I do know is that AMD knows it can't compete with the whole of Intel (even with TSMC's help), so it focuses on a narrower segment, Intel's processor division. AMD found an opening in the market, and it exploited it, though that's probably gonna change, now that Intel's announced that they're going to use third-party foundries as a way to shore up their (lack of) 7nm fabbing ability. Intel, a company that wouldn't have been caught dead outsourcing its processor* chips 5 years ago is doing it. I suppose that AMD, as a fabless company, means that they're flexible. They can choose whatever foundry fits their needs, be it TSMC, GlobalFoundries or whoever**. They're not stuck if their in-house fabbing suffers from delays like Intel. Intel could leverage that same flexibility by outsourcing.

*They did use third-parties for low-margin stuff, don't get me wrong, but their processors were almost entirely in-house.
**And they did, GlobalFoundries manufactured the Ryzen 1000 and 2000 CPUs, and the Ryzen 1000, 2000 and 3000 APUs. If TSMC (who make the 3000 CPUs, and the 4000 APUs) falls behind, I'm certain AMD will choose another foundry.

[TheSteppeWolf]

I wonder, if my laptop could run CK3 when it releases. It looks quite intensive.