Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About laminutederire

  • Title

Recent Profile Visitors

1,862 profile views
  1. I don't think I need to go that cheap. I can't justify 600 euros more for a weather sealed version, but was more aiming for a sub 50 euros solution to protect even if it's a pain to use.
  2. Hey! As I'm getting a fujifilm xt 30, that is not weather sealed, I was wondering where it would most probably break on the scale of being left in an hermetic box inside a bunker to having the weather equivalent to Linus. I would think under light rain exposed to water and heavy rain but sheltered it should be fine. Am I wrong on that? What would be the best solution to use it under heavier rain? I've seen people DIYing it or using rain sleeves. Are those actually effective despite looking precarious? Thanks all!
  3. Who cares about them though? If you can apply science in a correct way to deduce something sound, why do you need to discredit it by saying it's a lobby? It is true that with current technologies the per traveller cost can always be reduced by scaling things up and sharing resources. Maybe they do that research now because they've been doing it all along and the American propaganda machine has kind of stopped repressing that information from getting out. That's the most likely option if there is to be a conspiracy. Maybe you only see that research since that amount of time because people actually care now while they didn't 15 years ago. They have done climate change research since 50 years, there has been energy optimization research for transportation or heating since centuries as well. It had nothing to do with oil companies doing anything.
  4. The research I'm basing myself on isn't benefiting oil companies as they advise a shift from personal cars to public transportation and heavy car sharing. The idea is therefore to reduce the number of cars overall and adopt a more efficient shared network. They also advise electric technologies, but in the form of trams, subways and wired buses, to avoid reliance on polluting batteries. Lithium based batteries still are hard to recycle, require a very rare resource that is lithium, and other rare metals as well that require a lot of energy to be produced. If you can avoid that and oil altogether. Yes electric cars aren't necessarily as bad as some might depict them, but producing batteries is energy heavy, and looking at how fast the Tesla cars seem to degrade, I don't know if the benefits actually outweigh the initial cost. That's where the manufacturing design flaws of tesla cars completely kills it as being ecology friendly. They just don't last enough it seems.
  5. It's just an idiom. He is solely after money and do not care about earth or other people I think. His behavior does not indicate anything but marketed good intuitions, which aren't genuine. If he'd be upfront about his goals I'd be fine with it, but he always wants to persuade everyone he's not after money but something greater. Things work, but they never work with reasonable quality or costs, and never meet the goals he advertises them with. Tesla autopilot for instance are about as average as it can be. The reason why no one else sells it is that it's not safe enough. The batteries are good, bit everything else about the cars is bad. Space x was an idea that others were experimenting with, he just had more money to finish it faster. Not that amazing, he just took an opportunity that underfunded public research created. Sure, but between having an idea and a prototype there is a gap. But between that prototype and having a marketable product there is an even larger gap. And I haven't really seen him bother to pass that gap properly. He just has highly expensive prototypes more than actual products. So that's not very useful to earth anyway, since its not accessible enough. As for the carbon footprint, it's also way more polluting to produce those cars than it is producing regulat cars, so the ecological costs even out during the car lifespan. The research I've seen mostly argues more public transports and more local organisation of life in order to really reduce transportation ecological footprint. For Tesla, they produce car of poor quality and in insufficient quantity, at a very high cost. Basically they sell barely more than what other companies have as prototypes and don't produce in large quantities because the technologies aren't mature, and its labelled as innovative... In all fronts, it falls short of the expectations he explicitly set out many times.
  6. It also depends what you do with it. If you auto diagnose yourself and use it to work on yourself and know yourself better or live certain situation better, then even if it's not completely true, it stills helps. (If you use that to get sympathy that's something else, but people "having" diseases to get sympathy will always find something to try and get it anyway.)
  7. Well I think it's a line he doesn't care to cross if he's not the one being hurt during experimentation... I'm afraid he's mostly out there to make money at this point. Because anytime he said something was good for the world, it just ended up being smokes and mirrors. I mean, they still aren't even able to produce Tesla cars properly years after what they announced...
  8. In practice, it is useless short to middle and probably even long term to cure such things. So even saying it might be is preposterous and arrogant if you ask me...
  9. The thing is that no one on this earth has a proper understanding of what autism is exactly, so it's just pure announcements to hype investors as usual with that guy...
  10. I think they just want to take credit for saying that reinforcement learning is the future of AI..
  11. More than half of that kind of papers aren't reproducible anyway because people don't share their data sets. That's usually how it goes with google code anyway. I would be very critical of those results solely for that. It just displays the usefulness of techniques developed in other fields, and if those other fields are of any use, the results are probably limited. Just saying
  12. It depends on the game a lot. I'm saved by radeon chill on AC odyssey, because my 6600k is certainly struggling with it. Reducing the cpu load greatly helped crashes and stuttering. And that game is a year old only. It's been 6 months I've noticed my 6600k struggling in demanding games. It's still spitting out frames in CS GO like crazy, but that's it.
  13. Also shows that people in the game industry don't want to waste time on it, so that's not very reassuring.