Jetfighter808

I don't mean to be dismissive, but this absolutely does not, and cannot, account for all circumstances. What you describe is the subconscious alertness that all most competent drivers exhibit, but it simply does not account for situations that cannot be reasonably foreseen or expected, or those where you may have taken an evaluative risk judgement and dismissed the likelihood of something happening.
 
Admittedly in circa half a million miles of driving across 15 years and two dozen countries, on both road and track, these are fairly rare occurrences, but they definitely exist. The failure of the towing hitch of a caravan in front of me at 70mph on a busy motorway, a lorry driver falling asleep at the wheel and ploughing through the central reservation in Spain, and the front drivers side wheel of the car in front completely detaching at a Castle Combe trackday are the particular examples burned into my memory but I'm sure there are plenty of others. 
 
Whilst I totally agree that drivers can and should learn the limits of their vehicle- that includes threshold braking and understanding limitations of grip in different scenarios- the net impact of ABS for the overwhelming majority of drivers in actual emergency situations is positive. 
This isn't quite true, though it does rather depend how you define "lock". Most modern ABS systems work on the basis of wheel speed sensors reacting to discrepancies in rotational speed. They're able to sense loss of grip (slip) before a wheel "locks" in the sense that most drivers would recognise a wheel locking. 
 
I would again put forward the notion that "beating" (IE stopping in a shorter distance in a controlled environment with no actual hazard) sort of misses the point...to the point of outright irrelevance.

Apologies for interrupting such a heated discussion but I would like to add my tuppenceworth.
 
The point of ABS is to allow the vast majority of drivers to achieve a reasonable emergency stop regardless of road conditions or driving abilities. I have no objections at @straight_stewie for saying that ABS can increase braking distances. That is true in certain situations sand and gravel where such increases are significant. What I do have issue with is saying:
And the assorted mish mash of an argument saying how this translates to shorter stopping distances in the real world. Now I don't know about where you live but here in the UK unless you're telepathic that ain't always the case. Car door opens on a narrow street? Farmer pulls out of his farm on a blind bend on a country lane? Twat doesn't know how to use a slip road and swings out in front of you for no reason? Deer crosses the road? 
 
And that is only the start of the issue. Threshold breaking relies on you knowing where the point of slip will occur. That's difficult on a racetrack where brake points are consistent, track and tire temps are broadly the same and the process of track evolution is relatively predictable. It's boarderline impossible on a country road in winter. Shaded bits behind hedges will still have black ice although the rest of the warm is dry, wet caddle grids will be offer the square root of diddly squat in terms of grip, mud flung from a passing tractor will hamper grip, a mish mash of different tarmac as the council looks behind the sofa for funds to build a slightly more usable road, off camber bits of road, pot holes that have been filled with water and are now completely frozen with ice, slippy white lines, slippy manhole covers, crests that will reduce max braking potential as the suspension decompresses,  troughs that will increase max braking  potential etc...
 
There is a reason why Rally Drivers who practice on a closed course still need pace notes like "off camber, grippy, slippy, caution, crest etc..."
 
Waze or Google maps doesn't really give you that kind of information unless there is some sort of Dirt partnership I don't know about. On the road I have mentioned above I can guarantee that an ABS car with a good driver will stop in a more controlled manner than one without ABS but with an excellent driver.
 
Hell, there was a reason why F1 before 94 had cars that had ABS as it offered an advantage. I'm not sure about you but I think Prost and Mansell can be classed as above average drivers and the FW15C did have ABS and managed to win 10 races. If ABS was as bad as you claim I think Newey would have just saved a couple of kilo's and ripped everything out. He didn't.
 
 
 

Apologies for interrupting such a heated discussion but I would like to add my tuppenceworth.
 
The point of ABS is to allow the vast majority of drivers to achieve a reasonable emergency stop regardless of road conditions or driving abilities. I have no objections at @straight_stewie for saying that ABS can increase braking distances. That is true in certain situations sand and gravel where such increases are significant. What I do have issue with is saying:
And the assorted mish mash of an argument saying how this translates to shorter stopping distances in the real world. Now I don't know about where you live but here in the UK unless you're telepathic that ain't always the case. Car door opens on a narrow street? Farmer pulls out of his farm on a blind bend on a country lane? Twat doesn't know how to use a slip road and swings out in front of you for no reason? Deer crosses the road? 
 
And that is only the start of the issue. Threshold breaking relies on you knowing where the point of slip will occur. That's difficult on a racetrack where brake points are consistent, track and tire temps are broadly the same and the process of track evolution is relatively predictable. It's boarderline impossible on a country road in winter. Shaded bits behind hedges will still have black ice although the rest of the warm is dry, wet caddle grids will be offer the square root of diddly squat in terms of grip, mud flung from a passing tractor will hamper grip, a mish mash of different tarmac as the council looks behind the sofa for funds to build a slightly more usable road, off camber bits of road, pot holes that have been filled with water and are now completely frozen with ice, slippy white lines, slippy manhole covers, crests that will reduce max braking potential as the suspension decompresses,  troughs that will increase max braking  potential etc...
 
There is a reason why Rally Drivers who practice on a closed course still need pace notes like "off camber, grippy, slippy, caution, crest etc..."
 
Waze or Google maps doesn't really give you that kind of information unless there is some sort of Dirt partnership I don't know about. On the road I have mentioned above I can guarantee that an ABS car with a good driver will stop in a more controlled manner than one without ABS but with an excellent driver.
 
Hell, there was a reason why F1 before 94 had cars that had ABS as it offered an advantage. I'm not sure about you but I think Prost and Mansell can be classed as above average drivers and the FW15C did have ABS and managed to win 10 races. If ABS was as bad as you claim I think Newey would have just saved a couple of kilo's and ripped everything out. He didn't.
 
 
 

Apologies for interrupting such a heated discussion but I would like to add my tuppenceworth.
 
The point of ABS is to allow the vast majority of drivers to achieve a reasonable emergency stop regardless of road conditions or driving abilities. I have no objections at @straight_stewie for saying that ABS can increase braking distances. That is true in certain situations sand and gravel where such increases are significant. What I do have issue with is saying:
And the assorted mish mash of an argument saying how this translates to shorter stopping distances in the real world. Now I don't know about where you live but here in the UK unless you're telepathic that ain't always the case. Car door opens on a narrow street? Farmer pulls out of his farm on a blind bend on a country lane? Twat doesn't know how to use a slip road and swings out in front of you for no reason? Deer crosses the road? 
 
And that is only the start of the issue. Threshold breaking relies on you knowing where the point of slip will occur. That's difficult on a racetrack where brake points are consistent, track and tire temps are broadly the same and the process of track evolution is relatively predictable. It's boarderline impossible on a country road in winter. Shaded bits behind hedges will still have black ice although the rest of the warm is dry, wet caddle grids will be offer the square root of diddly squat in terms of grip, mud flung from a passing tractor will hamper grip, a mish mash of different tarmac as the council looks behind the sofa for funds to build a slightly more usable road, off camber bits of road, pot holes that have been filled with water and are now completely frozen with ice, slippy white lines, slippy manhole covers, crests that will reduce max braking potential as the suspension decompresses,  troughs that will increase max braking  potential etc...
 
There is a reason why Rally Drivers who practice on a closed course still need pace notes like "off camber, grippy, slippy, caution, crest etc..."
 
Waze or Google maps doesn't really give you that kind of information unless there is some sort of Dirt partnership I don't know about. On the road I have mentioned above I can guarantee that an ABS car with a good driver will stop in a more controlled manner than one without ABS but with an excellent driver.
 
Hell, there was a reason why F1 before 94 had cars that had ABS as it offered an advantage. I'm not sure about you but I think Prost and Mansell can be classed as above average drivers and the FW15C did have ABS and managed to win 10 races. If ABS was as bad as you claim I think Newey would have just saved a couple of kilo's and ripped everything out. He didn't.
 
 
 

As a network engineer, your network videos make me cringe. Dont get me wrong, you get the basics but then spread misinformation elsewhere to the viewers. Not understanding VLANs, like do they have to be configured or why a PC connected to a trunk and not an access port is not working, at their basics proved that this task should have been handed off. 
 
First, that pfsense box will not be able to push 10gig. On top end hardware with pure routing, no ACLs, firewall just permit any any you might be able to push 8-9gig before it gets crippled. Forget trying to run any other services on the box as well. You do have plenty of headroom for 5gig though. 
 
There were much better options to go and with much more features that can truly handle 10gig with 40gig upgradability. Cisco is a given but even more so should be Fortinet for a 10gig firewall router combo for your use. Juniper also is a very solid option. Anything but PFsense.
 
While I applaud you enthusiasm  and still enjoy you videos, your lack of network engineer and purchasing now resulted:
 
- resolving an issue will be a nightmare without understanding the concepts of why the configuration was set or what is needed to fix it which can lead you to hours of downtime.
- PFsense is behind greatly on updates security and stability
- No upgradability
 
Yes this is an elitist comment but I dont want you to get screwed over in the long run.

Why not use a small UPS (to provide power whilst the generator starts up) and a generator? Cheaper and more power for longer.

Bag?  More like this.

And I thought I was going overboard saying bag instead of grain

That's pretty sad when above msrp is considered a hot deal.

isn't overclocking really bad when mining.
lots more power usage for little gain.

150$ USD for a bean bag.
Thats a bit much

Has Linus personally dropped them?

not really

Please -snip- that quote it's huge lol

9001% more RGB

Are you sure, Captain Obvious?

Energy drinks aren't worth it. I used to drink them as a long haul truck driver (lorry driver for our UK friends)  
Well that all ended with me in the hospital after having suffered a mild heart attack due to caffeine overdose. But I am the one to blame. I downed 32 cans of red bull in less than 4 hours. 
 
I just avoid energy drinks as they aren't worth it. And nothing is so important to risk your own health and well being over. 

100000 hours of brown noise plus use an acetylene torch to accelerate the process.

What do you mean by fastest???  Highest Clock Speed? Most IPC? Best Multi-Thread Perf? Best Single Thread Perf? Specific Task?  Seems like a good way to start yet another Intel vs AMD thread... 

Then you didn't look at the post dates.
 
1800x, 1700x, 1700. 1st to 3rd.
 
They are consumer grade. They are great for (hobby) content creators AND streamers. So not really enthausiasts grade. Considering the price, they are consumer grade. They also use AM4 motherboards, without many bells and whisles, so again: consumer grade.
 
Also, AMD thinks 8 cores is the future. (and I agree) Just as AMD lead the way to duo cores. (correct me if I am wrong, but AMD was the first with a 2 cores CPU at a fair price?)

I thought this post might be worth making because I've seen a lot of hardware reviewers using thermal (i.e. IR) cameras to check external temperatures (most recently in the "Backplates cool your videocard" LTT video, but I've seen a lot of other websites do it as well). I want to make it clear that I'm not writing this post to attack LTT or anybody else, but instead I'm doing it to offer a bit of knowledge to the handful of people out there who might actually be interested. So rather than doing real work, I'm going to give a mini IR camera physics lesson on an internet forum instead.
 
IR cameras don't have a way of directly measuring the temperature of objects in the way that a thermometer does. Instead, they measure the amount of thermal radiation coming from a surface (IR wavelengths in this case), and then use that intensity to calculate a temperature using what's known as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The equation looks like this:
 
T = (I/(e*A*s))1/4
 
where T is the temperature, I is the intensity of the IR radiation entering the camera, e is the emissivity of the surface you're pointing the camera at, A is the area of that surface, and s is just a constant which we can ignore here. The important thing to note here is that there are other variables which go into this calculation, namely e and A.
 
Now, the most important one, and the one I'm going to focus on is the emissivity e. Emissivity is a property which varies from one material to another, and is essentially a measure of how well a given material behaves like an ideal black body (i.e., how good the material is at radiating IR). It can range from 0 to 1, where 1 is the equivalent of an ideal black body, and 0 means that the object doesn't radiate any IR radiation at all. Most thermal cameras (including the FLIR ones that I think most tech reviewers use) assume that the emissivity is 0.9 or so. This means that if the object you're pointing the camera at actually has an emissivity of 0.9, then the temperature that the camera shows on-screen will be accurate. However, there are plenty of materials which do NOT have an emissivity of around 0.9. Metals would be the most relevant example.
 
Metals tend to have very low emissivities (often less than 0.1). So what happens if we try to measure the temperature of, say, a copper surface with our camera? The emissivity of copper is around 0.05 (varies a bit depending on smoothness of the surface), but our camera is assuming that the emissivity is 0.9, which is WAY too high. This means that the temperature that the camera calculates will be considerably lower than the true temperature (see the equation above). 
 
Metals have another problem, and that is that they are also good at reflecting IR wavelengths. This means that when you point your camera at that piece of copper, some of the IR radiation that it's measuring is actually coming from somewhere else in the room and simply reflecting off of the copper surface and into the camera. 
 
These two different phenomena combine to make it look like the piece of copper is colder than its surroundings, when in reality everything is the same temperature. This is exactly what happened in the IR images shown in LTT’s “Backplates cool your videocard” video. In the images it looks like the copper region is much colder than the surrounding backplate, when in reality it was probably as hot or hotter.


 
So there are a few conclusions that we can make here. First, one should take a grain of salt if exact temperatures are measured using a thermal camera. If the emissivity that the camera assumes is different than the emissivity of the object you’re measuring, then the temperature given by the camera will be incorrect.


 
Second, we CAN compare relative temperatures between different regions, if we do it carefully. This can be done by putting a piece of non-shiny tape on each of the surfaces that you’re trying to compare. The tape will equalize to the same temperature of whatever it’s attached to, and because you have the same tape on both surfaces (e.g., a piece of copper and a piece of plastic), the emissivities will also be the same (because now it's the tape radiating in both cases) and the temperatures of the two objects will be directly comparable. You can even take this a step further if you want to get accurate temperatures. If your camera allows you to manually set the emissivity of what you’re looking at (many FLIR cameras do), you can determine the emissivity of the tape you’re using by putting some tape on a surface, measuring its temperature with a normal thermometer, and then adjusting the emissivity in the camera’s settings until the onscreen temperature matches the true temperature. Once you know the emissivity of your tape, you can then use that emissivity in your camera’s settings to accurately measure the temperature of anything that you put the tape on in the future.

I guess there's an app for that too, you just need to have a rooted phone, check kingoroot for that. but If I were you I would stay away from overclocking a phone or a tablet, you wont get anything from it, only more heat and less battery

4-5 Hours, just to go 40 miles?  that's 8-10Mph... you running there, or have a really shitty car?

The real question is how many of them did he drop?