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

Sniperfox47

Member
  • Content Count

    2,767
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

5 Followers

About Sniperfox47

  • Title
    Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sniperfox47

    Why you shouldn't water cool your PC

    I really wish they had included a non-stock control of one of the Corsair AIOs with the fans from the Noctua one. The OEM Corsair fans with the H110i were pretty terrible and I can only imagine the ones on the H100i aren't any better. Noctua crushes in the case of fans so it may be that the AIO is mostly fine and the fans are most of the issue.
  2. Just want to point out that it's not free, in the same way that Android's Invert Colours and Whitewash modes aren't free. They need to have an extra shading pass to invert/greyscale the image, as well as logic to keep certain parts of the image clear. In many cases it's much cheaper than the power cost of the display itself, but it's certainly not free. That's precisely why having a dark mode in the OS is something people have been looking for. On Android 7 and 8 people were even doing this with Substratum/RRO/OMS, because you're using code injection to make the app render itself in a dark palette and introduces no extra work (except the indexing that OMS does). Google closed the security vulnerability that Substratum was using so on Android 9 you can't abuse RRO/OMS this way. I really hope google gets their act together and builds a dark theme RRO overlay directly into Android like they were testing a couple years back, or even creates a public interface for users to use RRO/OMS, although that's not super likely to happen.
  3. Yeah they use a machine learning algorithm to identify you as human and just make you solve the puzzle to help train their other machine learning algorithms x'D
  4. The future of Android is Fluid Because there's no point in spending gpu and battery power to do layout and rendering on a viewport that doesn't exist. It's likely adding a widget there to occlude any elements that might get forced up there making them not render and save that little bit of power. None kf the apps I've seen affected by this have been GL apps which also lends credence.
  5. Except in an analogue environment there always is... The chances of two options being equally optimal in an analogue setting is infinitismal in the most literal of senses. A 30% chance of killing someone is mechanically Superior to a 30.00000000001% chance of killing someone, within margin of error. And why do we care about AI being accepted? Allowing human drivers behind the wheel in situations where they will kill a person but an AI would not is grossly negligent. People don't have to like or accept it. They have to deal with the fact that AI are strictly superior to them and live with it. Again that's literally impossible, since in the field of ethics both answers are wrong to some audiences. Even in the incredibly contrived situation of you can kill person A or person B, either option will result in a negative reaction from at least some portion of the population on an ethical basis. Which of the two choices you choose is really irrelevant, what matters is you're making a choice. People inherently dislike the agency of that choice being taken out of their control. That's too bad for them. They don't have to like it. How does that have literally anything to do with the section you quoted? The block you quoted there was a part of the block you quoted above explaining how any solution is going to provoke a negative reaction. But let's talk about that. Negligence and incompetence is not an excuse for manslaughter. It doesn't excuse the life being taken when an alternative technology exists that would not have resulted in that death and which you could have trivially leveraged. Humans are worse drivers than self driving vehicles. The best human drivers are about on par with the current high tier self driving vehicles (excluding Uber as mentioned above), and these vehicles are only set to get better and better. The majority of the populace is *much* worse at driving than the best human drivers. There's literally no ethical dilemma there. You have a choice between killing person A and not killing person A. That's a simple optimization problem, not an ethical one, as one option is clearly better. Nobody did. I said I'd head it off before you did. You seem to have a thing for misrepresenting my wording and I figured I should get in front of it on this instance.
  6. I never once made the assertion that ethics isn't important to psychology... It's a cornerstone of psychology and the whole concept of conciousness. I made the claim that ethics, a field of psychology and sociology, has no place in the discussion of the correct choice for an automated car to make when there is always a mechanically optimal solution. That solution may not always line up with ethics, but that's kind of irrelevant because any other possible choive, by virtue of being a worse choice and therefore also posing risk, would also not line up with ethics. With a self driving car you are dealing with analogue situations, not digital ones. You don't have the option of killing person A or killing person B, you also have the option to take actions which have the lowest probability of killing either. And before you get offended about my use of the word probability with regards to killing them, everything has a probability to kill someone. Eating a banana there is a probability that they will choke on that banana and die, or a probability that they will have an allergic reaction. You can never eliminate these probabilities, merely mitigate them, and a computer can take the option with the computationally lowest risk of injury or death for *all* parties.
  7. I'm going to reply just to this because it is indicative of the communication issue we're having. If you're going to talk about how ethics is an important part of psychology, please read a psychology textbook. Even the basics used for psychology 101. Rationalization, the term *you* used has nothing to do with rational thought or being rational. Rationalization is specifically that psychological quality of using a dissonance as a defence mechanism, that's what rationalization means. It means justifying something irrational as being rational, hence the suffix at the end which means "to make as though" as in "to make as though rational". The logical fallicy of rationalization is *directly* related to the psychology term rationalization. Technical language exists because it is a consistent common basis for which to build discussion and debate. You can't have your cake and eat it too, calling out things as not being technically true based on the colloquial meaning of a word used out of context. If you want to argue sociology and psychology I'm happy to do so, but not if you're going to disregard the platform of understanding in those fields.
  8. I'm not sure what you're trying to say there as the definition you quoted said the exact same thing I said, namely that it's a matter of random choice or personal whim. Random choice is choice, it is chosen by something, and as such is personal whim. But it doesn't necessarily need to be even seemingly random as it can also be a matter of personal whim. The definition you quoted in argument of my point supports it... And yeah... They're a matter of rationalization. That is exactly what I've been saying. That *is* why they're flawed. Rationalization is not the same thing as rational thought, it's a psychological defence mechanism whereby you cover up confusing or uncomfortable truths with a different *seemingly* rational answer that you convince yourself of. Rationalization is not truth. It is not logic. It is merely a convenient lie we tell ourself when then truth is inconvenient. Yeah and judicial method *is* the method where the solution to an issue is the result of the whine of a third party. An arbiter or judge. Nothing to disagree with as that all fits perfectly with the meaning of the other words. But more importantly you can't throw around technical matters like ethics, psychology, sociology, etc and then excuse yourself as using the words incorrectly because that's the "colloquial use". If you're talking about a technical topic, your colloquial use of words is irrelevant, the technical use is what matters and that *is* the technical meaning of arbitrary. That is the technical meaning of arbitrary across multiple fields, not just statistics or psychology. Heck even in CS, arbitrary code is code that is chosen naively because it appears to be proper code, regardless of whether it is or not. That is the basis of "Arbitrary Code Execution". If I use the technical definition, or even the definition that *you* quoted at me yes it is also true. And yes my reasoning is flawed. I am a human. I am flawed. Therefore anything created by my own agency is similarly flawed. I don't contest that. Do you have some point to make about my flawed reasoning? You seem to present them as being important because they're "big" or, if I'm understanding you correctly, popular. Is that correct? But just because it is something popular does not make it correct. A lot of rationalizations we've had about our world have been "big", have been popular. The Geocentric model was pretty darn "big" for a while. That doesn't make it right. The fact that people see themselves as having value and see other "life" as having value doesn't mean that that "life" has any fundamental value. Corporate Ethics is "big" because both public relations and internal relations between the humans that make up a corporation are "big", not because those ethical beliefs are accurate to fundamental facts.
  9. Sniperfox47

    IBM makes $34bn offer for cloud computing firm Red Hat

    I find it amazing that the company behind the most stable Linux distro (Cent) is the same company bankrolling the most unstable (Fedora)
  10. What are you even talking about? Having that car is not a right... Being alive is a right. You don't have a right to have a car. But even if you did your logic is totally baseless because self driving cars are provably less risk to civilians than cars driven by people, unless they're made by Uber. By that logic you should take away everyone's drivers lisence and shut down Uber's self driving program before you even consider shutting down the other major self driving players. What are you even talking about? No it doesn't... Arbitrary is the Latin word Arbitrarius coming from the latin word Arbiter meaning "one who judges or dictate". Arbitrary is a thing that is dependent on ones personal judgement or reasoning as opposed to fundamental principles of nature or logical reasoning... If morals and ethics are decided on personal whim and the influences of society they are the very definition of Arbitrary... That's what the word means... Them being different is not the reason they're flawed, them being totally independent of any principle or logical reasoning is why they're flawed. Humans are flawed creatures, anything we determine by virtue of our own agency is likewise flawed, again by definition...
  11. Which is what it means for them to *be* arbitrary... Defined by personal whim as opposed to a concrete and fundamental system... Everyone's ethics are different. Everyone's morals are different. And that's precisely why we shouldn't care about anyone's ethics or morals because they're typically not based on any logical reasoning, but rather on the societal conditioning we grow up as. Everyone's ethics are inherritantly flawed. We shouldn't base our future on something we know to be flawed.
  12. The solution to any ethical dillema is to not worry about ethics. Ethics are totally arbitrary and meaningless. They're nothing more than artificial constructs of our minds. Like "time", "life" or "happyness". All ethics serve to do is get in the way of the fundamentally optimal solution.
  13. Sniperfox47

    Pimax Virtual Reality Headsets pre-order

    Considering the quality of the 5k version why is anybody even thinking of this, much less preordering? Like I see a lot of "the 8k version is better! Everyone says the 8k version will be better" but when a company has only released a fairly mediocre product in the past they don't deserve your faith about future products.
  14. Sniperfox47

    The Google Pixel 3 is having issues w/ video audio quality

    It's using the audio codec (DAC/ADC/Encoder/Decoder) in the SoC just like a lot of high end phones so the most likely probability is that they just built the sample release with it running in a lower than native sample rate. A lot of these tiny integrated ADCs have issues when recording at low sample rates, adding a lot more electrical noise then they otherwise would when they downsample. A number of my smaller USB DACs have similar issues if they're doing the upsampling.
×