Deus Voltage

Take-Two's lawyers are about to start activating Red Alert 2 superweapons.

They should apply his fine toward ending world hunger...like he said he would do. Or fixing Flint's water. Or one of the many other things he's said he would do publicly and then just never did do.

As noted by another commentator, Linus may have made some interesting points, but he failed to take the discussion to its logical conclusion.
 
Before I get to that though, there are key points that Linus did not address in his Wan Show that I would like to note/dissect:
 
Ads nowadays are a serious vector/risk vis a vis malware/fraudulent behavior. Consumers are becoming more aware of this fact and are therefore more hesitant to leave this security loophole on their systems.
 
  - You may argue: "just leave the ads running on the trusted websites (YouTube, ect...) like Luke said"
 
   --> to which I reply: " and how many people do you think are going to do that on a consistent/regular basis?"
 
Most people come back from work/school tired and seeking some sort of refuge/escapism. They do not want to go through a Scientology/political/ect... ad.
 
The last thing average consumers want to do is tinker with their adblockers to generate more revenue to their favorite creators.
 
    - You might argue " but you only have to do it once"
 
      --> To which I reply: " Sure. Until you want to listen to a YouTube music video or some other long form musical material that constantly stops mid-way because of a random algorithmically chosen ad*.
 
*(this by the way is an entire discussion on its own simply because when you block ads on every other website, they are no longer personalized for you, so they become more random on YouTube. It's more multi-factorial than that, so I am probably underestimating the issue"
 
The point being:
 
 The problem at this stage, indeed the discussion, should in my opinion no longer be about whether using adblockers constitutes as piracy or not (I don't believe it is, even by using Linus's "interesting" logic).
 
 The logical conclusion of the discussion in my view is:
 
 Is Google offering a service that is sufficiently good/convenient so as to make people overlook ads?
 
- Removal of dislikes: check
 
- Claiming to prioritize independent/small creators (jeez, it's in the name: YOU TUBE")  While consistently highlighting/prioritizing mainstream media outlets on recommended/home page/search results of users: Check
 
- Highly questionable takedown/copyright system that has done more bad than good (increasingly so over the past 3 - 4 years): Check
 
- Using an ethically questionable algorithm that relies on the strong emotions and reactions of people for recommendations under the pretext of "personalization"rather than using a more objective/neutral metric (or both, since those two words have different meanings): Check
 
Ect...
 
In my view: no, YouTube does not provide a good enough service to merit not using an adblock.
 
My two cents.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Why not admit to yourself the advertising industry is predatory and abusive and needs to be completely reformed. I refuse to support it. I refuse to support "criminals".

As noted by another commentator, Linus may have made some interesting points, but he failed to take the discussion to its logical conclusion.
 
Before I get to that though, there are key points that Linus did not address in his Wan Show that I would like to note/dissect:
 
Ads nowadays are a serious vector/risk vis a vis malware/fraudulent behavior. Consumers are becoming more aware of this fact and are therefore more hesitant to leave this security loophole on their systems.
 
  - You may argue: "just leave the ads running on the trusted websites (YouTube, ect...) like Luke said"
 
   --> to which I reply: " and how many people do you think are going to do that on a consistent/regular basis?"
 
Most people come back from work/school tired and seeking some sort of refuge/escapism. They do not want to go through a Scientology/political/ect... ad.
 
The last thing average consumers want to do is tinker with their adblockers to generate more revenue to their favorite creators.
 
    - You might argue " but you only have to do it once"
 
      --> To which I reply: " Sure. Until you want to listen to a YouTube music video or some other long form musical material that constantly stops mid-way because of a random algorithmically chosen ad*.
 
*(this by the way is an entire discussion on its own simply because when you block ads on every other website, they are no longer personalized for you, so they become more random on YouTube. It's more multi-factorial than that, so I am probably underestimating the issue"
 
The point being:
 
 The problem at this stage, indeed the discussion, should in my opinion no longer be about whether using adblockers constitutes as piracy or not (I don't believe it is, even by using Linus's "interesting" logic).
 
 The logical conclusion of the discussion in my view is:
 
 Is Google offering a service that is sufficiently good/convenient so as to make people overlook ads?
 
- Removal of dislikes: check
 
- Claiming to prioritize independent/small creators (jeez, it's in the name: YOU TUBE")  While consistently highlighting/prioritizing mainstream media outlets on recommended/home page/search results of users: Check
 
- Highly questionable takedown/copyright system that has done more bad than good (increasingly so over the past 3 - 4 years): Check
 
- Using an ethically questionable algorithm that relies on the strong emotions and reactions of people for recommendations under the pretext of "personalization"rather than using a more objective/neutral metric (or both, since those two words have different meanings): Check
 
Ect...
 
In my view: no, YouTube does not provide a good enough service to merit not using an adblock.
 
My two cents.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

As noted by another commentator, Linus may have made some interesting points, but he failed to take the discussion to its logical conclusion.
 
Before I get to that though, there are key points that Linus did not address in his Wan Show that I would like to note/dissect:
 
Ads nowadays are a serious vector/risk vis a vis malware/fraudulent behavior. Consumers are becoming more aware of this fact and are therefore more hesitant to leave this security loophole on their systems.
 
  - You may argue: "just leave the ads running on the trusted websites (YouTube, ect...) like Luke said"
 
   --> to which I reply: " and how many people do you think are going to do that on a consistent/regular basis?"
 
Most people come back from work/school tired and seeking some sort of refuge/escapism. They do not want to go through a Scientology/political/ect... ad.
 
The last thing average consumers want to do is tinker with their adblockers to generate more revenue to their favorite creators.
 
    - You might argue " but you only have to do it once"
 
      --> To which I reply: " Sure. Until you want to listen to a YouTube music video or some other long form musical material that constantly stops mid-way because of a random algorithmically chosen ad*.
 
*(this by the way is an entire discussion on its own simply because when you block ads on every other website, they are no longer personalized for you, so they become more random on YouTube. It's more multi-factorial than that, so I am probably underestimating the issue"
 
The point being:
 
 The problem at this stage, indeed the discussion, should in my opinion no longer be about whether using adblockers constitutes as piracy or not (I don't believe it is, even by using Linus's "interesting" logic).
 
 The logical conclusion of the discussion in my view is:
 
 Is Google offering a service that is sufficiently good/convenient so as to make people overlook ads?
 
- Removal of dislikes: check
 
- Claiming to prioritize independent/small creators (jeez, it's in the name: YOU TUBE")  While consistently highlighting/prioritizing mainstream media outlets on recommended/home page/search results of users: Check
 
- Highly questionable takedown/copyright system that has done more bad than good (increasingly so over the past 3 - 4 years): Check
 
- Using an ethically questionable algorithm that relies on the strong emotions and reactions of people for recommendations under the pretext of "personalization"rather than using a more objective/neutral metric (or both, since those two words have different meanings): Check
 
Ect...
 
In my view: no, YouTube does not provide a good enough service to merit not using an adblock.
 
My two cents.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

As noted by another commentator, Linus may have made some interesting points, but he failed to take the discussion to its logical conclusion.
 
Before I get to that though, there are key points that Linus did not address in his Wan Show that I would like to note/dissect:
 
Ads nowadays are a serious vector/risk vis a vis malware/fraudulent behavior. Consumers are becoming more aware of this fact and are therefore more hesitant to leave this security loophole on their systems.
 
  - You may argue: "just leave the ads running on the trusted websites (YouTube, ect...) like Luke said"
 
   --> to which I reply: " and how many people do you think are going to do that on a consistent/regular basis?"
 
Most people come back from work/school tired and seeking some sort of refuge/escapism. They do not want to go through a Scientology/political/ect... ad.
 
The last thing average consumers want to do is tinker with their adblockers to generate more revenue to their favorite creators.
 
    - You might argue " but you only have to do it once"
 
      --> To which I reply: " Sure. Until you want to listen to a YouTube music video or some other long form musical material that constantly stops mid-way because of a random algorithmically chosen ad*.
 
*(this by the way is an entire discussion on its own simply because when you block ads on every other website, they are no longer personalized for you, so they become more random on YouTube. It's more multi-factorial than that, so I am probably underestimating the issue"
 
The point being:
 
 The problem at this stage, indeed the discussion, should in my opinion no longer be about whether using adblockers constitutes as piracy or not (I don't believe it is, even by using Linus's "interesting" logic).
 
 The logical conclusion of the discussion in my view is:
 
 Is Google offering a service that is sufficiently good/convenient so as to make people overlook ads?
 
- Removal of dislikes: check
 
- Claiming to prioritize independent/small creators (jeez, it's in the name: YOU TUBE")  While consistently highlighting/prioritizing mainstream media outlets on recommended/home page/search results of users: Check
 
- Highly questionable takedown/copyright system that has done more bad than good (increasingly so over the past 3 - 4 years): Check
 
- Using an ethically questionable algorithm that relies on the strong emotions and reactions of people for recommendations under the pretext of "personalization"rather than using a more objective/neutral metric (or both, since those two words have different meanings): Check
 
Ect...
 
In my view: no, YouTube does not provide a good enough service to merit not using an adblock.
 
My two cents.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

As noted by another commentator, Linus may have made some interesting points, but he failed to take the discussion to its logical conclusion.
 
Before I get to that though, there are key points that Linus did not address in his Wan Show that I would like to note/dissect:
 
Ads nowadays are a serious vector/risk vis a vis malware/fraudulent behavior. Consumers are becoming more aware of this fact and are therefore more hesitant to leave this security loophole on their systems.
 
  - You may argue: "just leave the ads running on the trusted websites (YouTube, ect...) like Luke said"
 
   --> to which I reply: " and how many people do you think are going to do that on a consistent/regular basis?"
 
Most people come back from work/school tired and seeking some sort of refuge/escapism. They do not want to go through a Scientology/political/ect... ad.
 
The last thing average consumers want to do is tinker with their adblockers to generate more revenue to their favorite creators.
 
    - You might argue " but you only have to do it once"
 
      --> To which I reply: " Sure. Until you want to listen to a YouTube music video or some other long form musical material that constantly stops mid-way because of a random algorithmically chosen ad*.
 
*(this by the way is an entire discussion on its own simply because when you block ads on every other website, they are no longer personalized for you, so they become more random on YouTube. It's more multi-factorial than that, so I am probably underestimating the issue"
 
The point being:
 
 The problem at this stage, indeed the discussion, should in my opinion no longer be about whether using adblockers constitutes as piracy or not (I don't believe it is, even by using Linus's "interesting" logic).
 
 The logical conclusion of the discussion in my view is:
 
 Is Google offering a service that is sufficiently good/convenient so as to make people overlook ads?
 
- Removal of dislikes: check
 
- Claiming to prioritize independent/small creators (jeez, it's in the name: YOU TUBE")  While consistently highlighting/prioritizing mainstream media outlets on recommended/home page/search results of users: Check
 
- Highly questionable takedown/copyright system that has done more bad than good (increasingly so over the past 3 - 4 years): Check
 
- Using an ethically questionable algorithm that relies on the strong emotions and reactions of people for recommendations under the pretext of "personalization"rather than using a more objective/neutral metric (or both, since those two words have different meanings): Check
 
Ect...
 
In my view: no, YouTube does not provide a good enough service to merit not using an adblock.
 
My two cents.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

About the attack, people don't secure their internet connected devices, color me shocked.
 
About the contents of it, big fan. I've got no issues with my current employer, I work with great people, do interesting things, bosses that treat us with respect, and according to some folks that have been there much longer than I have, raises that keep up with industry wage growth, which is a surprisingly rare thing. Past employers have been a very different story. I've seen many of the people around me, especially in jobs considered "unskilled", being basically exploited. A lot of them were poor adults with multiple children and multiple jobs and didn't have the time to get the experience necessary for a better job. They couldn't risk holding out for a better offer, because not getting this job meant not being able to make rent. Kept on the cusp of part-time so they couldn't get benefits, lower pay, you name it. Just before I left a high school job at a big box store I found out that a few of my coworkers were making almost $2 an hour less than I was for positions with way more work than I had, and even I wasn't being paid all that much, $12.50 an hour or thereabouts. A union would be great for them, but of course it's bad for business so any thoughts of unionizing must be brutally crushed.
 
 
Totally off-topic, but does anyone else see the tweet flickering between having and not having a scroll bar? It seems like it's just long enough to need a scroll bar, but the scroll bar appearing causes it to shrink and not need a scroll bar, and when the scroll bar goes away it gets bigger again, and thus continues the circle of life.

Don't get the OP and other people really hating on pirating, and feeling high and mighty for that or right in some way. 
First of all there are sites that I used for a decade to download hundreds of games, and haven't found a single virus, believe me I would know if I was infected, I scan my network and my pc  regularly, just to be sure and I find it fun. 
Moreover not everyone that pirates is an a*****e there are f
good reasons for it, I buy games that I love even if they don't have multi-player and there is no reason to buy them, but I pirate most of EA games, for understandable reasons, and games that have loads of micro transactions etc, I will gladly pay 60€ for a good well polished game, but I refuse to pay 60€ +500€ extra on dlc or micro transactions( Sims 4 for example) just to get a feature that should have been in the game to begin with. Also sometimes I pirate the game just to see if I will like it, what's the point of buying a game if you will quit it in 2 hours, if I like it I will buy it if not then just uninstall and be done with it. 
 
Just my two cents on the matter

Of course Linus Torvalds would defend the vaccine. The 5G nanobots they inject you with are running Linux.
 
/s

My main disagreement with Linus's take is his argument that "If you buy it at MSRP it's a great deal!" No shit, a hard boiled egg in a PCI-e slot would be a better deal than buying a scalped 3080. But the issue is that you're not going to find a 3080Ti for MSRP. We don't live in a magical world where every other GPU is scalped to shit and the RTX 3080Ti is just there, unaffected, at $1200. His entire argument falls apart when you bring it into actual reality. If we were in a position where the 3080Ti wasn't scalped, it's likely that the 3080 wouldn't be scalped either, and the 3080 would still be the better buy. Unless through a program like the Verified Actual Gamer program, there is no way the RTX 3080Ti would be fine, and the 3080 wouldn't.
 
And the positioning of this card is weird as hell. If you are already spending upwards of $1200 on a GPU, you are likely the person to spend $1500 on the 3090. This card is for nobody. The "poor people who should not be complaining about a card they're not going to buy" aren't going to buy it because its a terrible deal compared to the 3080, and for the people who have the money to buy the 3080Ti, they would most likely want to flex with a 3090 instead. Like who is this card for? Maybe if this card was $800 or $900 it would have a purpose, but for $1200, most "gamers" are just going to buy a Ryzen 9 and a 3080, assuming conditions allow it.

The weird thing about the LTT review is that they compare it to the 3090 only really.
 
"You are getting 3090 performance for (theoretically) less money!!"
 
Gamers' Nexus said it well when they noted that the 3090 was extremely bad value to begin with, and they didn't recommend buying that either.
 
The 3080Ti is only 7%  faster than the 3080, at 71% price increase. That is insanely bad value, even for a xx80 vs xx80ti. The difference between the 980 and 980Ti or 1080 and 1080Ti or even 2080 and 2080Ti was way bigger to justify the big price jump.
 
Sadly all of this is really theoretical, as the real world pricing... well.. you know.

Linus' take was weird. I think I know what he means but I don't know why he meant it in such a way.
 
Yes, the 3080ti is a good value vs 3090 for gaming. But it's absolutely terrible value vs 3080. So why does he keep comparing it to the 3090? It makes no sense. The performance difference vs 3080 is within 10%.
It's not a halo product... 3090 is a halo product. And if you're going to spend $1200 (in a world of MSRP give or take) on a card just because you can afford it then you may as well ditch out the extra $300 and get the 3090 as you obviously don't care that it's just within 10% from the 3080.
 
Then there is another reason why 3080ti is so weird. It's basically "worthless" for gaming when compared to 3080 as it's barely any better from the 3080 and you pay significantly more for it and it's also worthless for 3D art and developers because it's limited by the 12GB of VRAM. So again, the 3090 actually makes way more sense and if you don't need the 24GB of VRAM just get the 3080... Why spend that much more for a 3080ti?
 
I can see the 3080ti being worth it if it kept the 24GB of VRAM from the 3090 and only the die was cut down a bit but then there would be little to no point of getting the 3090 besides of the "I want the best of the best" people.
 
I really don't get it. Am I missing something?
Seems just like NVIDIA needed a product that has fat margins since it will sell out either way, they cut down on cooler, VRAM, probably can produce way more of these than the 3090's as well but keep most of the price from the 3090. Which is fine for NVIDIA, don't get me wrong.
But for consumers? This card would be way less popular than 3090 or 3080 if we had no shortages, it will sell now just because of it's existence, not because it's actually "good".

Is anyone going to be really surprised that this is Linus' take, though? Steve is right, and looking at prices from scalpers he has the numbers to boot. Used hardware isn't the same as reselling new hardware especially with the current market. Bad take is bad.

Reviews are already circulating on Youtube. I am very much interested in hearing your opinions:
 
GamersNexus
 
 
JayzTwoCents
 
 
LinusTechTips
 
 
HardwareUnboxed
 
 
Personal Opinion:
 
I think Linus missed the mark on this one big time. I was almost tempted to think that the review was paid by Nvidia (as noted by Spotty@, the review was made a bit too early so I retract what I previously said for the time-being), but I wouldn't go that far as Linus has a pretty good track record as a tech reviewer and throwing around silly accusations hurts the conversation more than anything. I agree with Steve (GN) and the rest. It is overpriced and feels like Nvidia is tone deaf. What do you guys think?
 
- Edit 2: Retraction retracted, Linus doubled down on the newest Wan show (06/05/2021):
 
- Edit 3: Linus to Steve from GN "I don't know how much used hardware Steve has actually ever bought in his life, but the way that it works is....... (goes on to explain how it works in his view) I really don't know what he is basing that on honestly" (Time stamp: 16:19)
 
- Edit 4: "If you had to calculate how many FPS per dollar, you are not the customer for a 3080 Ti in the first place. So why are you Mad? What's the point of getting mad?"  (Time stamp: 22:41)
 
- Edit 5: "If you're someone who is not in that price range and you're willing to scalp it, then (pauses for a bit) you'd be crazy not to buy it." Luke is visibly uncomfortable with the statement (more so I think with the one right before it). Linus goes on to re-clarify his previous position about scalping, which is that scalping is bad and he does not support it. (time stamp: 26:04)
 
 

How is it overpriced? What is price? Price is a bygone of the past era/s
 
 
Imho, it should've been priced a 100-159 bucks cheaper. It would've been much better.

Much like the 2080ti, 6900XT, and 3090 .. the 3080ti is an overpriced money grab targeting those without money sense or market forethought.
 
For those interested, here something i posted back in September last year about the price history of Nvidias top end cards. Add the 3080ti and see just how disgusting the latest generations have been price wise.
 
 

 
 

LTT filmed their video before the price was released and their video suffered for it. They should have waited until they had all the information about the product before reviewing it.

I think there is a sucker born every minute and Nvidia knows this 🙂
 
 

Thread locked.
 
While it may impact some tech companies, there's no discussion of any technology aspects. This is a government imposed policy change that is fuelled by political motives, and it's those political motives that are the basis for the discussion. You can't discuss this without discussing why it is be implemented and that is for political reasons.
 
No political content, regardless of your views.
If something spans politics and tech, the discussion must remain clearly within tech and must not descend into politics This covers all parts of the site, including status updates  

Why do the modern right has to refer to companies and organizations in a free market protecting their interests by distancing from troubled individuals as "cancelling" by "social justice warriors"? It's a free country and you're not free from consequences of your actions.
 

I just simply wanted to point that there's plenty of actual evidence of him being a misogynist and sexually harassing women. I don't care enough about him to dig into the rest of it, though, and sure, there are undoubtedly people who are also coming up with false claims in the hopes of getting attention -- but then again, that happens for everything, it seems, nowadays.

Seems to me like there is plenty of basis, like e.g. RMS insisting on handing out his "romance cards" and harassing women, even when told not to; he just moved outside the conference to do it instead of doing it indoors.

Idk because they killed the competition?
 
There are great subreddits out there.