Syfes

Yes, thats why it melted... Corsair, Seasonic, Be Quiet, Super Flower etc do not include split cables as a cunning plan to melt your cables or connectors. Split cables are perfectly fine but can have more ripple and trouble with spikes.

Afaik DLSS 2.0 does not need to be trained to individual games, but to a big database of images independant of any specific game.
 
DLSS 1.0 had to be trained for every game induvidually.

Okay was the 4 page litany in the original post about the legality and whatnot really necessary? As far as I understand they sent a simple request to Nexus, not an agressive demand and it doesn't sound like anyone at any time threatened anyone else with legal actions. And it doesn't sound like CDPR'S message was intended to cover any legal bases but was simply a short message towards the public explaining why they made such a request of nexus.
 
I'm alright with calling people and companies out when they're in the wrong, but this just feels like you're looking for fire where there isn't even smoke.

Okay was the 4 page litany in the original post about the legality and whatnot really necessary? As far as I understand they sent a simple request to Nexus, not an agressive demand and it doesn't sound like anyone at any time threatened anyone else with legal actions. And it doesn't sound like CDPR'S message was intended to cover any legal bases but was simply a short message towards the public explaining why they made such a request of nexus.
 
I'm alright with calling people and companies out when they're in the wrong, but this just feels like you're looking for fire where there isn't even smoke.

Okay was the 4 page litany in the original post about the legality and whatnot really necessary? As far as I understand they sent a simple request to Nexus, not an agressive demand and it doesn't sound like anyone at any time threatened anyone else with legal actions. And it doesn't sound like CDPR'S message was intended to cover any legal bases but was simply a short message towards the public explaining why they made such a request of nexus.
 
I'm alright with calling people and companies out when they're in the wrong, but this just feels like you're looking for fire where there isn't even smoke.

Okay was the 4 page litany in the original post about the legality and whatnot really necessary? As far as I understand they sent a simple request to Nexus, not an agressive demand and it doesn't sound like anyone at any time threatened anyone else with legal actions. And it doesn't sound like CDPR'S message was intended to cover any legal bases but was simply a short message towards the public explaining why they made such a request of nexus.
 
I'm alright with calling people and companies out when they're in the wrong, but this just feels like you're looking for fire where there isn't even smoke.

Okay was the 4 page litany in the original post about the legality and whatnot really necessary? As far as I understand they sent a simple request to Nexus, not an agressive demand and it doesn't sound like anyone at any time threatened anyone else with legal actions. And it doesn't sound like CDPR'S message was intended to cover any legal bases but was simply a short message towards the public explaining why they made such a request of nexus.
 
I'm alright with calling people and companies out when they're in the wrong, but this just feels like you're looking for fire where there isn't even smoke.

Okay was the 4 page litany in the original post about the legality and whatnot really necessary? As far as I understand they sent a simple request to Nexus, not an agressive demand and it doesn't sound like anyone at any time threatened anyone else with legal actions. And it doesn't sound like CDPR'S message was intended to cover any legal bases but was simply a short message towards the public explaining why they made such a request of nexus.
 
I'm alright with calling people and companies out when they're in the wrong, but this just feels like you're looking for fire where there isn't even smoke.

I haven’t gone through all of them, but the one that seems most important to me is the last one about pcie 3.0 vs 4.0. If I’m not mistaken, they used a 10900k (which is the fastest gaming cpu). That means that even if pcie 4.0 has an effect on performance, it is not a big enough one that it is worth using a technically worse gaming cpu.

Above 1080p is useless, but 720 is definitely noticeable.

And don't buy a company billions in debt like ATI. 

And don't buy a company billions in debt like ATI. 

And don't buy a company billions in debt like ATI. 

And don't buy a company billions in debt like ATI. 

True, but consider how long that would take for literally hundreds of claimed videos.
 
Also, who's to say that the song he replaces it with might not get claimed in another few years?

YouTube creator Matt Lowne is a relatively popular Youtuber in the Kerbal Space Program community. Very recently, pretty much all of his channel's video's have received copyright claims by SonyATV, referring to a song he uses in many of his channel's intros.
 
According to Matt Lowne, this song called "Dreams" was originally listed in the YouTube Audio Library and could be used under creative commons license, but it seems that the rights for this song may have recently been acquired by SonyATV. Following this, it seems that SonyATV has issued corresponding copyright claims for videos on his channel dating back years.
 
 
https://twitter.com/Matt_Lowne/status/1195373518415945728
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcjVJ3Cznec
 
I have no knowledge of something similar happening previously, but this could set a concerning precedent? How many other creators may have this song on their videos? What happens when other songs receive the same treatment?

True, but consider how long that would take for literally hundreds of claimed videos.
 
Also, who's to say that the song he replaces it with might not get claimed in another few years?

True, but consider how long that would take for literally hundreds of claimed videos.
 
Also, who's to say that the song he replaces it with might not get claimed in another few years?

YouTube creator Matt Lowne is a relatively popular Youtuber in the Kerbal Space Program community. Very recently, pretty much all of his channel's video's have received copyright claims by SonyATV, referring to a song he uses in many of his channel's intros.
 
According to Matt Lowne, this song called "Dreams" was originally listed in the YouTube Audio Library and could be used under creative commons license, but it seems that the rights for this song may have recently been acquired by SonyATV. Following this, it seems that SonyATV has issued corresponding copyright claims for videos on his channel dating back years.
 
 
https://twitter.com/Matt_Lowne/status/1195373518415945728
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcjVJ3Cznec
 
I have no knowledge of something similar happening previously, but this could set a concerning precedent? How many other creators may have this song on their videos? What happens when other songs receive the same treatment?

True, but consider how long that would take for literally hundreds of claimed videos.
 
Also, who's to say that the song he replaces it with might not get claimed in another few years?

True, but consider how long that would take for literally hundreds of claimed videos.
 
Also, who's to say that the song he replaces it with might not get claimed in another few years?

YouTube creator Matt Lowne is a relatively popular Youtuber in the Kerbal Space Program community. Very recently, pretty much all of his channel's video's have received copyright claims by SonyATV, referring to a song he uses in many of his channel's intros.
 
According to Matt Lowne, this song called "Dreams" was originally listed in the YouTube Audio Library and could be used under creative commons license, but it seems that the rights for this song may have recently been acquired by SonyATV. Following this, it seems that SonyATV has issued corresponding copyright claims for videos on his channel dating back years.
 
 
https://twitter.com/Matt_Lowne/status/1195373518415945728
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcjVJ3Cznec
 
I have no knowledge of something similar happening previously, but this could set a concerning precedent? How many other creators may have this song on their videos? What happens when other songs receive the same treatment?

True, but consider how long that would take for literally hundreds of claimed videos.
 
Also, who's to say that the song he replaces it with might not get claimed in another few years?

True, but consider how long that would take for literally hundreds of claimed videos.
 
Also, who's to say that the song he replaces it with might not get claimed in another few years?

True, but consider how long that would take for literally hundreds of claimed videos.
 
Also, who's to say that the song he replaces it with might not get claimed in another few years?