TheMcSame

If they don't hold a charge, don't power anything or if they're damaged is pretty much my rule. I'd check them in another device if not visibly damaged. If they work, it might be your controller that's the issue. If it works in another device with reasonable life, it could be the controller, either, as another user mentioned, the voltages just aren't sitting right for the controller, or the controller is kaput.

Idk... I get where you're coming from, but I wouldn't say it's the opposite. Instead big and flashy is moving from the tower to the rest of the setup. As you said, bigger monitors, more monitors, RGB peripherals. But there seems to have been a bit of a move to smaller form factor cases (I could be talking complete BS, I've not exactly been keeping in the loop). So I wouldn't say it's dying, just that the flashiness is moving.

A new christmas song that isn't terrible? I'll take it. Then again, it should be no surprise really. Drop Elton John onto a song and you've got a guaranteed solid song already

Old KB suffered from some uh.... Liquid related damage... Only knocked out the num pad, but any excuse for something new. I was going to get something regardless when I finally upgrade my PC. Also, the RGB craze... I get it now

Yep... Also the fact that 'Youtube support' is using a Google logo for their picture rather than the Youtube logo is a bit of a flag in my eyes. Like, sure, Google owns Youtube. But if you were talking to Chevy customer support, would you expect the GM logo or the Chevy one?

Heavy handed but I'm not surprised at all. The consumer gets shafted again because of 'MuH cLiMaTe ChAnGe' when the fact of the matter is that big business, shipping, foreign manufacturing, etc are the ones that need to be chased up and hit with much harsher regs. Of course, California only has so much sway. They can't hit some company over in China with their regs. But global problems require global solutions. But it seems like the only solution going is to shaft the consumer at every opportunity and tell them to throw out their old stuff for these new 'green' products. Regardless of whether they're actually better or even ready to serve the market the same way their 'dirty' counterparts did. There's no way in hell all us John Does and Jane Smiths are making a dent in global emissions in comparison to all the big industries. Hell, is it still true that just a handful of the largest container ships pollute just as much as every single car in the world combined?

I'm not entirely sure that comparison works though? Like, sure, the increase has gone from 512x (RAM isn't sold using base 10 numbers like storage is) to 8x.. The problem is that you're working on X increase alone, which just doesn't offer any information of value. Sure, the first jump might be 512x... But it's only an increase of 1022MB, whereas the 8x jump is an increase of 7GB, just over 7x more space. Yes, the actual multiplication might be smaller, but the amount of space yielded from that smaller jump is significantly more than the first jump. Same applies here. 0.5GB to 100GB is a gain of 99.5GB. 100 to 256 is a gain of 156. The multiplication is smaller, but the jump in actual space is bigger. 100GB x10 is a significantly smaller jump than 1TB x10, despite both figures being multiplied by the same number If you only need an extra 100GB every year, that difference is going to get smaller and smaller, despite the actual increase being exactly the same. That's why comparing things with percentage/times difference with each other doesn't work. A 100x increase sounds bigger than an 11x increase, but in reality the 100x increase could be going from 1 to 100, while the 11x increase could be 10 to 110 The actual increase is exactly the same, despite the wildly different x increase Can CPUs even work in this comparison considering there's so much more to the performance of a CPU than just cores and clocks? I'm not going to argue with the rest because it seems pretty sound. It's just these above examples were a bit silly.

I mean, presumably Intel 7 will be 7nm, 4 4nm, 3 3nm, 20A 2nm, etc, and they're just dropping 10nm ESF or something like that. Then again it's not as if these naming schemes are forced to follow any logic anyway so

I mean, I don't disagree. I think we do have to cut down on this 'high and mighty' "YOU CAN'T FUTURE PROOF STUFF END OF" mindset when it's pretty clear people are simply asking whether it'll last for however many years. But once a product becomes obsolete it can't be future-proof, even if it is still of value. Like, I'm trying to play a devil's advocate sort of thing with this saying "It means this, but realistically, we all know what people mean is this". If someone is asking about future proof, it's fine to say it as long as it's not just what you're saying if you get what I mean. But yeah, I do agree that the two are very much different things. It might be harder to see that for gaming PCs where you'll see performance dip from amazing to acceptable, but if we were to look at cars rather than PCs, it becomes a lot easier to visualise because it's a lot more common for people to keep cars into the upper singles and double digit years. Granted, that's mostly going to be financial reasons. But the cars still fit the needs, if they really NEEDED something else they'd sell up and get something that fits. Granted, I get the same feeling with my car... It's a 2008 Fiesta, 1.4 diesel. I've seen it go from a half decent choice to just barely acceptable as budget cars have gotten quicker and horses have escaped the engine meaning it struggles to keep up initially with the flow of traffic and people look at you on slip roads like 'wtf are you doing? You're supposed to be getting up to speed' when in reality my foot is planted to to floor. But ultimately, Though my sort of ideal car is something that'll fly when you need it to. But it's the same idea. Much like my PC. it might not run as fast as I'd like it to. But it runs and that's what matters And I think the most important takeaway should be that we, as an entire species, need to stop thinking that obsolete products are bad and that we MUST upgrade and have the latest and newest shiny thing. Thus we need to see future proof as more a thing about fitting our uses rather than whether it'll be relevant/obsolete down the line. Yep, sort of what I was touching on with future proofing really. By definition, it is, but in reality that doesn't really change anything. Like, it's not produced any more so it is obsolete, but if it still performs and is still supported, does it really matter 100% and I think that's what a lot of people seem to forget when they want these 'future-proof' rigs, thought it applies to just about all products. If you want longevity, you have to manage your expectations with the times and your situation. These days my rig is definitely showing it's age. Though I've been shying away from upgrading due to priorities. Like, clearing some debt then saving up for a car is a higher priority to me than everything working blazingly quick. Though I don't help myself by going for something close to my ideal... I'm now currently eyeing up G20 M3s, specifically the 340d because a sports diesel it what ticks my boxes. Quick, good on fuel, it'll pull at just about any speed. Anyway, I'm rambling now

I'm just waiting for the day current gen BEVs are the new diesels... First we were told PETROL BAD DIESEL GOOD, EVERYONE BUY A DIESEL NOW Then we found out diesels weren't actually better Then we found diesels were actually a lot worse (VW scandal) Mark my words... It might not be for another decade or two, but there will come a point we're told these BEVs aren't the climate saviours we touted them as and we'll then be told to buy whatever new alternative is knocking about then like... Let's say BEVs that use man-made lithium for the li-ion batteries or something or some other material that's less destructive to obtain. After all, lithium is a rare Earth metal, though only rare by name (about as common as lead IIRC), so usually only found in smaller deposits. Probably the same reason some people are still afraid of planes and helicopters. Think, nuclear power plants and planes/helicopters are quite similar in some ways. They're incredibly safe as long as they're operated properly and not pushed into conditions they're not built for. Often times, failures are the result of human error or suddenly, uncontrollable events. Now, if you have an equipment failure with a dash of human error on top? You have a major issue. The problem stems from those rare incidents where a serious problem occurs and is met with human error/poorly trained staff. When it comes to nuclear power plants and aircraft, scenarios like these often end up with very catastrophic failures, so when these do happen, the numbers can look very scary and it'll get a lot of news coverage purely because it's rare. Look at it like this, about 5 people die every day on UK roads. No one bats an eye. If a plane goes down killing 100 people, it's all over the news, it's a massive tragedy. Another 20 days goes by... Another 100 deaths on UK roads and another plane goes down, killing 100. The former? Nothing. The latter? 24 hour news coverage. That's what it's about. It's all about association. It's all about those one off rare events. Those events that happen rarely but are catastrophic. That's why people are afraid.

I mean, the problem with "future proof" is that people say it to mean one thing, but it actually means something else. Often times, people say it to mean something that will perform many years from now. My PC is still holding on, not pushing as many frames as it could mind you, but with managed/realistic expectations of the hardware, considering it's age, many would deem that it was a 'future proof' build seeing as it's almost 7 years old and still performing acceptably... But where the conflict comes in is when you realise that future proofing isn't about performing. It's about continuing to be of value and not being obsolete... Sure, my 2014 4690k might still perform reasonably, but it's next generation replacement dropped in 2016, the chip was discontinued in 2017. It's obsolete, even if it still performs, it's still obsolete. I could be pushing 400 FPS on every game, max settings. If the hardware is EOL, it's obsolete and thus not future-proof. So sure, the FX chips might perform. But I'd imagine AMD discontinued production once they were producing Ryzen chips... That means the FX chips were made obsolete and thus they can't be future-proof. Of course, you can't blame people for taking this 'unofficial' definition of it over the actual definition, because the latter is essentially impossible. There will always be something that will obsolete the older models. Partly because there's always room for improvement, partly because... Well... You don't make money by having people hold onto your product forever and not enticing them with something better... Unless you're selling printers, in which case you're making bank either way. And when people think about something that's future proof, they tend to thing about how it will meet their needs rather than whether it'll be obsolete because, well, whether something is obsolete or not doesn't tend to be much of a concern in comparison to how it fits our needs.

Just spent like 20 mins wondering why I can't sign in on my PC. Yet in a rather odd twist, most things (that I usually do around this time anyway) are fine on my phone?

A patent from August 2020? I could've swore I heard news about something extremely similar a few years ago, on this very forum iirc

Couldn't help but splash on a Mi 10 Ultra. Bit pricey for my liking, but at least they're bringing something to the table unlike most asking for more money. Not particularly huge on the whole curved screen thing, though the hole punch camera is far less obnoxious than I thought it'd be.

Can't say I've had any issues with my Mi 9 so far. Can't say I have any minor complaints either.