LAwLz

Doesn't their gaming category also include console chips? Feels like we're in the stagnant period for consoles as anyone who is buying this gen likely already has, so there's only smaller incremental sales or replacements. Unless there is some way to separate out dGPUs it is difficult to tell what is going on.
 
As much as some hate on it, I do think it is the best indicator we have what PC gamers have and use. Or more precisely, Steam gamers. The question has long been, where is current gen AMD? Forums like this with a high self build crowd likely sees a distortion of AMD being more popular than it is in the wider market.
 
It depends on how you measure it. Performance numbers are easy. Image quality is less so. IMO FSR2/3 as it currently stands is a distant 3rd place behind DLSS and XeSS in image quality due to lack of temporal stability. AMD's teaser of FSR 3.1 might finally address that, but we'll have to wait and see.
 
I like TechPowerUp since they do averages across several titles, as individual titles can show greater variation. They put 4070S about 25% faster than 7900GRE in RT games at 1080p and 1440p, dropping to only a 4% advantage at 4k. In raster 4070S is 1% to 3% slower across the resolutions so basically about the same.
 
In the UK current cheapest in stock GRE is 529 vs 544 for the Super so close enough. For about the same price and raster performance, the Super gets you higher average RT performance as well as NVIDIA features. About the only advantage the red option has is 16GB vs 12GB, which might be a contributor to the 4k RT perf closing the gap.
 
EVGA sold GPUs in the UK too, but they failed to differentiate themselves from other makes and didn't get significant traction.
 
This is one of those games where once you get to adequate fps you're done. More doesn't really add value. Outside of 4k you don't have a difficult problem reaching that.

Poor Volta.. oh wait that was AMD 😅

How much swap usage are you seeing? Typically you should leave it to the default unless you have a weird usecase or issues. Using pagefile won't cause issue, and can help performance as programs will store unallocted memory on pagefile instead of actual memory, saving space for caching.

The zig bee standard may be open (like there is WiFi and BT standard). But the function of the valve still is proprietary software. If it wasn't proprietary, you wouldn't have to ask the manufacturer for any files 
 
Like a car has CAN BUS and many manufacturers use that. That doesn't mean you can freely change parts or reprogram parameters and still expect good outcome.
 
And even if they would let you do all kind of things, you still need to have the knowledge and experience.

It seems like the company provides a perfectly valid method for software updating their products that you're choosing not to do. Instead you're asking them to go against their company policy and send you a raw firmware file directly. 
 
Yeah, nothing strange about this situation at all. You're asking for something they are not obligated to do, and can potentially open themselves up to further trouble.

It sounds to me like you are using the products in an unsupported way, and as a result it is understandable that they do not provide you with further assistance.
If you want help, you have to do it the way they advertise/support.
 
Once you step outside of the supported way of doing things (in this case, using their hub and updating through that) you are usually on your own.
 
 
I disagree.
What is annoying is when people set up their complex third-party solutions, something doesn't work, and then blame the manufacturer. For all we know, the issue might be in one of the unsupported programs you are using, and providing you with files that aren't meant to be used with those pieces of software might cause even more issues. If you try and load the firmware through some unsupported means and something goes wrong, chance are you would blame the manufacturer again. Even if you wouldn't do it, plenty of other people would.
It becomes a lose-lose situation for the manufacturer. 
 
 
Also, I thought Linus was acting like an asshole in that video. Yelling and treating customer reps poorly is a really scummy thing to do. 

Sounds like you want something that doesn't exist, although I highly question why you'd want these particular things anyway. Sounds like you've built a very complicated list of requirements for seemingly no purpose. Or at the very least not a purpose you have made clear to us. 
 
You have already said no to Firefox anf Chromium based browsers. So what is there left? 
 
 
I would just like to add however that you can set a specific DNS in modern browsers. So if you are out and about you could just turn on a specific DNS that encrypts DNS queries. Personally though, I don't see my DNS queries being leaked as an "abysmal security situation". 

Sounds like you want something that doesn't exist, although I highly question why you'd want these particular things anyway. Sounds like you've built a very complicated list of requirements for seemingly no purpose. Or at the very least not a purpose you have made clear to us. 
 
You have already said no to Firefox anf Chromium based browsers. So what is there left? 
 
 
I would just like to add however that you can set a specific DNS in modern browsers. So if you are out and about you could just turn on a specific DNS that encrypts DNS queries. Personally though, I don't see my DNS queries being leaked as an "abysmal security situation". 

Sounds like you want something that doesn't exist, although I highly question why you'd want these particular things anyway. Sounds like you've built a very complicated list of requirements for seemingly no purpose. Or at the very least not a purpose you have made clear to us. 
 
You have already said no to Firefox anf Chromium based browsers. So what is there left? 
 
 
I would just like to add however that you can set a specific DNS in modern browsers. So if you are out and about you could just turn on a specific DNS that encrypts DNS queries. Personally though, I don't see my DNS queries being leaked as an "abysmal security situation". 

Sounds like you want something that doesn't exist, although I highly question why you'd want these particular things anyway. Sounds like you've built a very complicated list of requirements for seemingly no purpose. Or at the very least not a purpose you have made clear to us. 
 
You have already said no to Firefox anf Chromium based browsers. So what is there left? 
 
 
I would just like to add however that you can set a specific DNS in modern browsers. So if you are out and about you could just turn on a specific DNS that encrypts DNS queries. Personally though, I don't see my DNS queries being leaked as an "abysmal security situation". 

Which is why Intel is blaming the mobo manufacturers for using these unsafe defaults in their BIOSes.

That article is reminding me of this one
https://physiqonomics.com/fat-loss/
 
Just the no BS straight facts nature of it.

Yes, but that was 400-500 years ago. 
Things have changed since then.

That's a bad solution because it will block a large portion of the screen. They should add a proper dismiss button. Otherwise they shouldn't even have the cookie question appear at all. There is no point in having the banner appear if you only have one choise anyway. 

That's a bad solution because it will block a large portion of the screen. They should add a proper dismiss button. Otherwise they shouldn't even have the cookie question appear at all. There is no point in having the banner appear if you only have one choise anyway. 

Read this:
https://liamrosen.com/fitness.html

That's a bad solution because it will block a large portion of the screen. They should add a proper dismiss button. Otherwise they shouldn't even have the cookie question appear at all. There is no point in having the banner appear if you only have one choise anyway. 

OP is saying there needs to be a Decline button/option to say I don't want cookies though.

The way I view it, it's just another way of control
 
I'm not saying that some content shouldn't censored or that there shouldn't be some rules in place, but banning a company solely because it's majority owned by a company in a country that isn't viewed as well upon shouldn't be a thing.
 
Under that premise, we should be banning Intel/AMD and almost every piece of electronics because China has control over it and could install backdoors into the chips.
 
In regards to the whole "protect people and politics", I think that in itself is a flawed approach overall.  We already exist in a world where the social media companies have already been shown to do exactly what they are accusing TikTok of...and yet none of them have been banned.  e.g.  Lots of silicon valley workers who are employed in effectively refereeing the algorithms have political biases, and in some high profile cases they have used it against publicly stated policies to eliminate certain information.  The prime example of this was twitter and the last election.
 
Ultimately I would say, if the people want to use it let them use it.  It's all okay trying to educate people on misinformation, but ultimately the US itself is one that has their hands in a whole lot of stuff.
 
Other notable examples.
US asking MS to hand over data on servers not within the US itself.
PRISM
 
The thing is this is even before the corporations do things for their own favor.  You have Meta which pushes for their own purposes etc.

I have never found this argument persuasive. People have made it not just for social media and smartphones, but for video games, for television, and going further back you can find examples of it regarding different technologies. I don't believe it is anything more than moral panic.
 
Even if I steelman this argument and agree attention spans may be getting shorter, I am hard-pressed to find evidence of its negative effects. I accept you can measure that in many different ways, but for the sake of argument, let's say... productivity.
 
Attached below is a graph detailing the disparity between wage growth and productivity. (Wages aren't important to this discussion, but the chart looked good and properly defines productivity) The origin of the smartphone is disputed, but I think the release of the first iPhone (2007) is a fair starting point. As the graph demonstrates, productivity was virtually untouched by the introduction of smartphones. (We can even include social media if we want to go further back, I mean productivity only kept climbing)
 
YMMV if productivity is a good measurement for whether "shortened attention spans" have had any negative impact on society and I would not dissuade you from offering an alternative metric. But I think you could explain those away with an argument making less assumptions. (Like the number of mental health disorders diagnosed rising on average because, well, medicine got better at diagnosing them as our understanding of the field expanded)
 
Deciding to ban it based on that strikes me not only as a nanny state mentality, but informed by anecdotal evidence at best. Besides, staying off TikTok is, in my opinion, personal responsibility. I rarely hear this argument made for any other platform recently. We don't ban alcohol just because some people consume it irresponsibly.

There is quite a lot of misinformation (or very vague terms) about this news piece floating around. Even the source article itself seems to get some things wrong or at the very least makes misleading remarks.
 
1) Android devices going quite far back already had support for AV1. What is changing is that the decoder is being changed from libgav1 (Google's own AV1 decoder) to dav1d (the AV1 decoder developed by VideoLAN). So nothing is changing in terms of what devices can and can't play. It's just that the new decoder is better than the old one.
 
2) When talking about which formats a device supports or doesn't support it is very important to specify "software support" and "hardware support". Pretty much all devices support AV1 decoding in software. Very few support it in hardware. 
 
3) Just because your device reports support for a certain video format does not mean an app will use it. On Android, when an app fetches the list of supported formats the OS specifies if decoding of the format is supported in software, hardware or both. In other words, just because your phone supports AV1 decoding in software doesn't mean an app will just decide to fetch that format for you. The app itself will have information about which formats are supported in hardware and which aren't, and makes a decision based on that.
 
4) Just because the Youtube app, or any other app for that matter, uses the new dav1d decoder doesn't mean it will automatically fetch an AV1 video. Which video it decides to fetch is a separate from which formats are supported. As I said earlier, nothing in this chance from libgav1 to dav1d changes what devices report as supported formats. If Youtube now decides to play AV1 videos on devices that doesn't support hardware accelerated AV1 decoding then it is because the Youtube app doesn't care, not because of some OS change that messes with what gets reported as supported video formats.
 
5) Something to keep in mind is that AV1 is very easy to decode in software. Last time I checked, the OnePlus 8 with its quad Cortex-A77 CPU (Snapdragon 865) was able to easily get 250+ FPS when decoding high bitrate 1080 footage on just its CPU.
Even a single Cortex-A53 is enough for playing 720p footage with.
Of course, it is more than hardware-accelerated H.264 or VP9 decoding, but we're still talking about what should be a fairly low impact, especially since this mostly applies to phones that usually get 480p video served to them.
Laptops, where the power efficiency matters the most, have had hardware-accelerated AV1 decoding support for quite a while now. It shouldn't be too big of a deal.
 
 
I am sure that Google have run some calculations to see if this is a good idea or not.
 
 
 
Edit:
Not sure why so many people are talking about uploading in this thread either. This has nothing to do with uploading.
The only thing this (potentially) changes has to do with watching/downloading/decoding. Not uploading.

Read this:
https://liamrosen.com/fitness.html

I don't disagree with these rules or guidelines. But it is a slippery slope to overdoing it. 
 
You also have to see the difference between private setting where people volunteer to be near you, and a work or school place where people forced to be near you. The latter should have some rules or guidelines.
 
I'm not allergic, but some people are. Allergies are an objective complaint about fragrance  So you can't compare that to clothing colors. 
 
Ultimately people around us will form an opinion about us and have their biases. How we talk, look, smell etc. plays a role. Even if it is subconscious, a fragrance may make this opinion more negative with no possible upside compared to no-odor.  People may not complain about your fragrance, but they will have an opinion. And in today's workplace where no one is allowed to say anything anymore, that silent unspoken opinion about you may matter even more. 
 
We had a new employee recently. And like most newbies the first few days he showed up over dressed and also had the fragrance thing. I didn't say anything, but was glad he dropped that after a while. I'm sure he thought that was a positive, but I didn't see it that way. Maybe that is just me and I don't know what other people thought. But a no-odor has the best chance to be not negative. Any added odor had the chance to be negative.

I disagree. To me that's like saying the goal of clothes is to not notice them, because for example a blue shirt might look bad to someone who doesn't like the color blue. So everyone should wear gray t-shirts and blue jeans. 
 
Of course, everyone is free to use perfumes however they want, but I think a lot of the bad rep and the "it's best to avoid it completely" comes from people misusing them. 
 
Outside of some extreme cases (people very sensitive to perfumes), I think most people will appreciate some subtle fragrances. The problem comes when perfumes are used in excess. 
 
 
 
Here are my rule for using fragrances, and I think people would appreciate them more if they were followed. 
 
1) Don't use too much. It should be subtile. If you can be smelled from several meters away then you are doing it wrong. If you work an office job then the person sitting at the desk next to you should just barely be able to smell you, if at all. 
They should be able to smell you if you sit should to shoulder or hug you. Not as soon as you walk into the same room. 
Some fragrances are so strong that, IMO, even 1 spray is too much. In those cases it might be a good idea spray in the air and then walk through the mist. 
 
2) Don't use them to cover up other smells. You will automatically use too much if you try to cover other smells. 
 
3) Use it when appropriate. Don't put on a nice fragrance when wearing a hoodie and jeans. Use it when wearing some more formal attire. 
 
4) Use deodorant. Always. If you have hit puberty then you need to use deodorant in your armpits. They serve a different purpose than perfumes.
Personally I don't like the spray deodorant because people seem to use them too much, but the roll-on kind is a must. The goal of deodorant is to remove (not necessarily cover up) bad smells and prevent the development of new bad smells. This is especially true if you have shaved armpits (unshaved tend to not develop odors as easily). 
 
5) Be classy with the fragrances. If you're 30 then don't buy some Axe body spray bottle that makes you smell like a teenager going to prom. It's better to buy a decent bottle of perfume and use it sparingly, than buying the same cheap and strong smelling stuff that everyone else use in excess. Please note that more expensive doesn't necessarily mean better either. Smells in general have a powerful way of creating associations and memories so if you pick the most basic smell changes are the people who smell you will be reminded of something else. It's better to be slight unique so the smell don't accidentally trigger and unpleasant association (like high school prom). 

Only supplements you should use are
Creatine (20% are non responders)
Caffeine

and some sort of protein supplement if you are not able to hit your protein target
The vast vast majority of other supplements do not do what is advertised and are not validated by the FDA because supplements are not under their purview for whatever god forsaken reason. 

Do progressive overload on the muscles you want to grow on a plan you stick to. you dont have to do long sessions, any more then 1 hour a session, question if you are doing junk volume

full body 2-3 times a week works
Bro splits work
Focus on form, not the weight. The goal is to grow muscle, yes? full ROM is needed for that.