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

MageTank

Member
  • Content Count

    5,539
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Agree
    MageTank got a reaction from thechinchinsong in YouTube demonetized Onision for violating its Creator Responsibility policies off the platform   
    Nobody is arguing whether or not the person is guilty. As previously admitted, I have no understanding of the context behind this situation. My point is that YouTube has the right to terminate a partnership for any reason they deem fit if they deem it no longer beneficial to them. The same can be said for you and I with our various relationships/partnerships. Unless the parties have clauses in writing that specify otherwise, they are free to terminate with or without reason.
     
    For this particular situation, it would appear that they are making a claim that the party with whom they are terminating the relationship violated some kind of agreement they had in-place. We do not know if that agreement requires proof or not, but that is irrelevant as YouTube is not a court of law, much like you've already alluded to. They are a business and are paying a person whom they no longer believe is properly representing their brand and are therefore choosing to distance themselves based on public perception of the individual. Whether you want to view that as an YouTube implying the person is guilty or not, that's entirely up to you.
     
    I understand your point, and I am in agreeance that peoples livelihoods should not be at risk due to potential false accusations (ignoring this specific situation entirely, just speaking in general here), however I do disagree with your notion that corporations shouldn't have the right to terminate business relationships based on public perceptions of individuals. Understand that we live in a day & age heavily influenced by social media, and people seem to have an axe to grind for even the smallest transgressions. Nobody wants their brand associated with terms and accusations as serious as what is mentioned in this thread (or your example). 
     
    At the end of the day, this isn't about "judging" someone, it's simply business. We can try to make it about ethics, but I can assure you that YouTube doesn't care about who is right or wrong, they care only about what will impact their revenue/image.
  2. Funny
    MageTank got a reaction from FezBoy in Wait, What? Kids Found A Security Flaw in Linux Mint By Mashing Keys!   
    So all those hackers in the movies mashing random keys weren't faking it after all... The more you know.
  3. Funny
    MageTank got a reaction from Letgomyleghoe in Wait, What? Kids Found A Security Flaw in Linux Mint By Mashing Keys!   
    So all those hackers in the movies mashing random keys weren't faking it after all... The more you know.
  4. Funny
    MageTank got a reaction from thechinchinsong in Wait, What? Kids Found A Security Flaw in Linux Mint By Mashing Keys!   
    So all those hackers in the movies mashing random keys weren't faking it after all... The more you know.
  5. Funny
    MageTank got a reaction from G0dSpeed in Wait, What? Kids Found A Security Flaw in Linux Mint By Mashing Keys!   
    So all those hackers in the movies mashing random keys weren't faking it after all... The more you know.
  6. Funny
    MageTank got a reaction from panzersharkcat in Wait, What? Kids Found A Security Flaw in Linux Mint By Mashing Keys!   
    So all those hackers in the movies mashing random keys weren't faking it after all... The more you know.
  7. Funny
    MageTank got a reaction from soldier_ph in Wait, What? Kids Found A Security Flaw in Linux Mint By Mashing Keys!   
    So all those hackers in the movies mashing random keys weren't faking it after all... The more you know.
  8. Like
    MageTank got a reaction from dogwitch in We just leveled up HARDCORE - Fibre Networking Adventure   
    Meanwhile, I can't even get DSL offered in my area, despite an Amazon warehouse being built across the cornfield. It really hurts going from gigabit speeds down to 10Mbps "fiber-fed wireless" with awful latency, lol.
  9. Agree
    MageTank got a reaction from Dr_Whom in YouTube demonetized Onision for violating its Creator Responsibility policies off the platform   
    Nobody is arguing whether or not the person is guilty. As previously admitted, I have no understanding of the context behind this situation. My point is that YouTube has the right to terminate a partnership for any reason they deem fit if they deem it no longer beneficial to them. The same can be said for you and I with our various relationships/partnerships. Unless the parties have clauses in writing that specify otherwise, they are free to terminate with or without reason.
     
    For this particular situation, it would appear that they are making a claim that the party with whom they are terminating the relationship violated some kind of agreement they had in-place. We do not know if that agreement requires proof or not, but that is irrelevant as YouTube is not a court of law, much like you've already alluded to. They are a business and are paying a person whom they no longer believe is properly representing their brand and are therefore choosing to distance themselves based on public perception of the individual. Whether you want to view that as an YouTube implying the person is guilty or not, that's entirely up to you.
     
    I understand your point, and I am in agreeance that peoples livelihoods should not be at risk due to potential false accusations (ignoring this specific situation entirely, just speaking in general here), however I do disagree with your notion that corporations shouldn't have the right to terminate business relationships based on public perceptions of individuals. Understand that we live in a day & age heavily influenced by social media, and people seem to have an axe to grind for even the smallest transgressions. Nobody wants their brand associated with terms and accusations as serious as what is mentioned in this thread (or your example). 
     
    At the end of the day, this isn't about "judging" someone, it's simply business. We can try to make it about ethics, but I can assure you that YouTube doesn't care about who is right or wrong, they care only about what will impact their revenue/image.
  10. Agree
    MageTank got a reaction from thechinchinsong in YouTube demonetized Onision for violating its Creator Responsibility policies off the platform   
    I don't know anything about Instagram, but does Twitter pay their users directly through a partner program of some kind? If not, I wouldn't consider your analogies to be an apples to apples comparison. When you accept payment in the form of a partnership, you are under certain obligations to abide by, much like an employee must abide by the terms set forth by their employer or risk termination.
     
    You are not wrong in terms of the precedence this sets, but it's important to factor in that YouTube has a bigger stake for their image in this than sites that simply provide a platform with no further compensation. Providing a platform is one thing, but continuing to pay someone for doing what you'd consider to be against your terms sets another precedent entirely. While I don't know the guy involved or the context behind the situation, I wouldn't fault YouTube for terminating a partnership if they do not believe the partnership to be in their best interest. They have the right to do so, much like any of us do.
  11. Agree
    MageTank got a reaction from Jet_ski in YouTube demonetized Onision for violating its Creator Responsibility policies off the platform   
    I don't know anything about Instagram, but does Twitter pay their users directly through a partner program of some kind? If not, I wouldn't consider your analogies to be an apples to apples comparison. When you accept payment in the form of a partnership, you are under certain obligations to abide by, much like an employee must abide by the terms set forth by their employer or risk termination.
     
    You are not wrong in terms of the precedence this sets, but it's important to factor in that YouTube has a bigger stake for their image in this than sites that simply provide a platform with no further compensation. Providing a platform is one thing, but continuing to pay someone for doing what you'd consider to be against your terms sets another precedent entirely. While I don't know the guy involved or the context behind the situation, I wouldn't fault YouTube for terminating a partnership if they do not believe the partnership to be in their best interest. They have the right to do so, much like any of us do.
  12. Agree
    MageTank got a reaction from Vishera in YouTube demonetized Onision for violating its Creator Responsibility policies off the platform   
    I don't know anything about Instagram, but does Twitter pay their users directly through a partner program of some kind? If not, I wouldn't consider your analogies to be an apples to apples comparison. When you accept payment in the form of a partnership, you are under certain obligations to abide by, much like an employee must abide by the terms set forth by their employer or risk termination.
     
    You are not wrong in terms of the precedence this sets, but it's important to factor in that YouTube has a bigger stake for their image in this than sites that simply provide a platform with no further compensation. Providing a platform is one thing, but continuing to pay someone for doing what you'd consider to be against your terms sets another precedent entirely. While I don't know the guy involved or the context behind the situation, I wouldn't fault YouTube for terminating a partnership if they do not believe the partnership to be in their best interest. They have the right to do so, much like any of us do.
  13. Funny
    MageTank got a reaction from Spotty in Wait, What? Kids Found A Security Flaw in Linux Mint By Mashing Keys!   
    So all those hackers in the movies mashing random keys weren't faking it after all... The more you know.
  14. Like
    MageTank got a reaction from Drama Lama in Wait, What? Kids Found A Security Flaw in Linux Mint By Mashing Keys!   
    So all those hackers in the movies mashing random keys weren't faking it after all... The more you know.
  15. Informative
    MageTank got a reaction from linuxChips2600 in Nvidia Fixes Their Driver Issues (it's not just AMD who has driver issues)   
    Had my hands on half a dozen board partner cards before the launch, ranging from the MLCC designs (both full and hybrid) to the "cheaper" SP-cap (originally incorrectly labeled as "POS caps") configurations. I can confirm that both designs had their fair share of crashing, however I originally attributed this to the fact that I couldn't get my hands on a signed driver to save my life despite our contacts swearing they were signed and ready for WHQL (plot twist, far from it, lol)
     
    Even now, I have an early revision MSI 3080 Gaming X Trio and current revision model with different cap configurations, both overclock identically and I cannot tell them apart, short from the fact that our water block needed thicker thermal pads for the newer revision.
     
    I am firmly in the camp that it was a driver issue from the start, and that the capacitor configuration was more so a placebo than anything. Not to discredit Der8auer or the others, but I think people were out looking for a quick solution due to the high demand for the cards and were ready to do anything to please the mob at that time. In the end, all it did was make it more difficult for me to get a reference PCB with a normal capacitor configuration short of flying to Europe and finding a weird reference card there.
     
    With how limited these cards were at launch, it wasn't like we had a large enough sample size between users to determine what was actually causing the instability within the drivers that allowed some users to use the GPU's without issue while others had issues non-stop.
    They did lower the boost clocks, but oddly enough, you can still overclock these cards without the crashes occurring again. I feel like they actually adjusted the voltage/frequency curve to be a bit less aggressive while still leaving some overhead for overclocking. You can also see that the cards still scale, so we are not dealing with the phantom scaling issue that was present on Pascal cards, where you could push 2200mhz but lose performance in the process.
     
    This is probably the only claim I can't test. We never could get our hands on any of the FE cards except for the 3070, and that was long after this issue was resolved.
     
  16. Like
    MageTank got a reaction from Lurick in I have a meh motherboard with a lga1151 socket and a i7 7700 (non k) and i wanted to know if i could upgrade to a i7 9700k without changing it out   
    I mean, depending on how much effort OP wants to invest, it can be done, but it's no easy task, lol.
     
    https://community.hwbot.org/topic/175489-asrock-z170-mocf-lives-on-coffee-lake-mods/
     
    You'll need a silver pen (or a decent pencil with a graphite core if you are cheap and lazy like I am), some solder & wire if your board requires the post-bypass shenanigans, and a custom BIOS for the board you are trying to use. The last one might be the hardest to procure, so be very mindful of that.
     
    I'd say that the chipsets themselves were not a limiting factor in CFL's compatibility with previous generation 1151 boards, but rather Intel's artificial limiting of compatibility for no real objective reasoning. Had we seen a revision to PCIe lanes being supplied from the CPU to the chipset, or the addition of controllers that would require additional lanes or hardware support that the CPU's couldn't provide, sure, I'd buy the excuse that a new chipset was needed, but Z370 was a joke and really shouldn't have existed in my opinion.
     
    TL:DR? Both of you are right if we are talking generic support, but I wouldn't say it's not possible. You can get it to work on a myriad of boards with enough effort, it's just questionable as to whether the effort is actually worth it. 
     
    @Projekt8276-1 I'd follow the advice others are giving and simply upgrade platforms. You'll be better off in the long run, as these pre-built OEM boards are not designed to last and are quite limited on platform features that you may find beneficial from a quality of life perspective.
  17. Informative
    MageTank got a reaction from Blademaster91 in Nvidia Fixes Their Driver Issues (it's not just AMD who has driver issues)   
    Had my hands on half a dozen board partner cards before the launch, ranging from the MLCC designs (both full and hybrid) to the "cheaper" SP-cap (originally incorrectly labeled as "POS caps") configurations. I can confirm that both designs had their fair share of crashing, however I originally attributed this to the fact that I couldn't get my hands on a signed driver to save my life despite our contacts swearing they were signed and ready for WHQL (plot twist, far from it, lol)
     
    Even now, I have an early revision MSI 3080 Gaming X Trio and current revision model with different cap configurations, both overclock identically and I cannot tell them apart, short from the fact that our water block needed thicker thermal pads for the newer revision.
     
    I am firmly in the camp that it was a driver issue from the start, and that the capacitor configuration was more so a placebo than anything. Not to discredit Der8auer or the others, but I think people were out looking for a quick solution due to the high demand for the cards and were ready to do anything to please the mob at that time. In the end, all it did was make it more difficult for me to get a reference PCB with a normal capacitor configuration short of flying to Europe and finding a weird reference card there.
     
    With how limited these cards were at launch, it wasn't like we had a large enough sample size between users to determine what was actually causing the instability within the drivers that allowed some users to use the GPU's without issue while others had issues non-stop.
    They did lower the boost clocks, but oddly enough, you can still overclock these cards without the crashes occurring again. I feel like they actually adjusted the voltage/frequency curve to be a bit less aggressive while still leaving some overhead for overclocking. You can also see that the cards still scale, so we are not dealing with the phantom scaling issue that was present on Pascal cards, where you could push 2200mhz but lose performance in the process.
     
    This is probably the only claim I can't test. We never could get our hands on any of the FE cards except for the 3070, and that was long after this issue was resolved.
     
  18. Like
    MageTank got a reaction from leadeater in Nvidia Fixes Their Driver Issues (it's not just AMD who has driver issues)   
    Had my hands on half a dozen board partner cards before the launch, ranging from the MLCC designs (both full and hybrid) to the "cheaper" SP-cap (originally incorrectly labeled as "POS caps") configurations. I can confirm that both designs had their fair share of crashing, however I originally attributed this to the fact that I couldn't get my hands on a signed driver to save my life despite our contacts swearing they were signed and ready for WHQL (plot twist, far from it, lol)
     
    Even now, I have an early revision MSI 3080 Gaming X Trio and current revision model with different cap configurations, both overclock identically and I cannot tell them apart, short from the fact that our water block needed thicker thermal pads for the newer revision.
     
    I am firmly in the camp that it was a driver issue from the start, and that the capacitor configuration was more so a placebo than anything. Not to discredit Der8auer or the others, but I think people were out looking for a quick solution due to the high demand for the cards and were ready to do anything to please the mob at that time. In the end, all it did was make it more difficult for me to get a reference PCB with a normal capacitor configuration short of flying to Europe and finding a weird reference card there.
     
    With how limited these cards were at launch, it wasn't like we had a large enough sample size between users to determine what was actually causing the instability within the drivers that allowed some users to use the GPU's without issue while others had issues non-stop.
    They did lower the boost clocks, but oddly enough, you can still overclock these cards without the crashes occurring again. I feel like they actually adjusted the voltage/frequency curve to be a bit less aggressive while still leaving some overhead for overclocking. You can also see that the cards still scale, so we are not dealing with the phantom scaling issue that was present on Pascal cards, where you could push 2200mhz but lose performance in the process.
     
    This is probably the only claim I can't test. We never could get our hands on any of the FE cards except for the 3070, and that was long after this issue was resolved.
     
  19. Informative
    MageTank got a reaction from Delicieuxz in Nvidia Fixes Their Driver Issues (it's not just AMD who has driver issues)   
    Had my hands on half a dozen board partner cards before the launch, ranging from the MLCC designs (both full and hybrid) to the "cheaper" SP-cap (originally incorrectly labeled as "POS caps") configurations. I can confirm that both designs had their fair share of crashing, however I originally attributed this to the fact that I couldn't get my hands on a signed driver to save my life despite our contacts swearing they were signed and ready for WHQL (plot twist, far from it, lol)
     
    Even now, I have an early revision MSI 3080 Gaming X Trio and current revision model with different cap configurations, both overclock identically and I cannot tell them apart, short from the fact that our water block needed thicker thermal pads for the newer revision.
     
    I am firmly in the camp that it was a driver issue from the start, and that the capacitor configuration was more so a placebo than anything. Not to discredit Der8auer or the others, but I think people were out looking for a quick solution due to the high demand for the cards and were ready to do anything to please the mob at that time. In the end, all it did was make it more difficult for me to get a reference PCB with a normal capacitor configuration short of flying to Europe and finding a weird reference card there.
     
    With how limited these cards were at launch, it wasn't like we had a large enough sample size between users to determine what was actually causing the instability within the drivers that allowed some users to use the GPU's without issue while others had issues non-stop.
    They did lower the boost clocks, but oddly enough, you can still overclock these cards without the crashes occurring again. I feel like they actually adjusted the voltage/frequency curve to be a bit less aggressive while still leaving some overhead for overclocking. You can also see that the cards still scale, so we are not dealing with the phantom scaling issue that was present on Pascal cards, where you could push 2200mhz but lose performance in the process.
     
    This is probably the only claim I can't test. We never could get our hands on any of the FE cards except for the 3070, and that was long after this issue was resolved.
     
  20. Informative
    MageTank got a reaction from Quackers101 in Nvidia Fixes Their Driver Issues (it's not just AMD who has driver issues)   
    Had my hands on half a dozen board partner cards before the launch, ranging from the MLCC designs (both full and hybrid) to the "cheaper" SP-cap (originally incorrectly labeled as "POS caps") configurations. I can confirm that both designs had their fair share of crashing, however I originally attributed this to the fact that I couldn't get my hands on a signed driver to save my life despite our contacts swearing they were signed and ready for WHQL (plot twist, far from it, lol)
     
    Even now, I have an early revision MSI 3080 Gaming X Trio and current revision model with different cap configurations, both overclock identically and I cannot tell them apart, short from the fact that our water block needed thicker thermal pads for the newer revision.
     
    I am firmly in the camp that it was a driver issue from the start, and that the capacitor configuration was more so a placebo than anything. Not to discredit Der8auer or the others, but I think people were out looking for a quick solution due to the high demand for the cards and were ready to do anything to please the mob at that time. In the end, all it did was make it more difficult for me to get a reference PCB with a normal capacitor configuration short of flying to Europe and finding a weird reference card there.
     
    With how limited these cards were at launch, it wasn't like we had a large enough sample size between users to determine what was actually causing the instability within the drivers that allowed some users to use the GPU's without issue while others had issues non-stop.
    They did lower the boost clocks, but oddly enough, you can still overclock these cards without the crashes occurring again. I feel like they actually adjusted the voltage/frequency curve to be a bit less aggressive while still leaving some overhead for overclocking. You can also see that the cards still scale, so we are not dealing with the phantom scaling issue that was present on Pascal cards, where you could push 2200mhz but lose performance in the process.
     
    This is probably the only claim I can't test. We never could get our hands on any of the FE cards except for the 3070, and that was long after this issue was resolved.
     
  21. Informative
    MageTank reacted to beerdrunkmonk in Intel Core i9-11900(k) + i7-11700(k/kf) 8c16t Rocket Lake Desktop CPU Benchmarks and Pricing Leaked: (Update #8)   
    While it is 14nm, it's not Skylake architecture.
     
    "Rocket Lake is a codename for Intel’s desktop x86 chip family which is to be released in the first quarter of 2021. It will be based on the new Cypress Cove microarchitecture, a variant of Sunny Cove (used by Intel's Ice Lake mobile processors) backported to the older 14nm process." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lake
  22. Agree
    MageTank got a reaction from Nex6 in UPDATE: NVIDIA backtracks - Hardware Unboxed blacklisted from receiving GeForce FE review samples over “focus on rasterization over ray-tracing”   
    Thank you for taking the time to respond. I want to clarify the point of empathy, as I believe there may be some miscommunication here. I do not believe Nvidia should be empathetic towards reviewers or vice versa. My point on empathy was that companies typically lack the level of empathy required to understand the needs of individual consumers, which is why it's up to reviewers to shoulder that burden and help put themselves in the shoes of Joe Everyman. Nvidia does not need the empathy of reviewers or customers because as a business, Nvidia should put the needs of their company above all else. This includes customers. I've been vocal on this forum that the notion that the customer always comes first is a false one, and that in business, companies should prioritize their own survival first and foremost in order to provide jobs and maintain the livelihoods of those under their employ. This also extends to their ability to provide products and services to consumers. If a company puts customers above themselves, they are either lying, or they simply aren't in it for the long term. At the end of the day, it's Nvidia's job to offer a compelling product to consumers and win them over with said product. If Nvidia cannot do that on their own merits, it's not up to reviewers to do that job for them, even if reviewers are getting product for "free". Reviewers are not working on behalf of the companies, they serve the consumers. Now there is still that symbiotic relationship where their critical feedback can be used to offer product improvements and that in turn benefits the companies, but that is simply an added benefit, not the primary goal in this context. I believe the main issue with this entire ordeal was Nvidia (or whomever the individual was that sent the email) missed the opportunity to use HWUB's survey to their benefit. HWUB did the legwork and determined 70% of his audience didn't care about raytracing. Nvidia could have offered to pay for a promotional ad spot specifically for those features in an attempt to reach that untapped/uninterested market. This would have benefited all parties involved, but hindsight is 20/20...
     
    As for the car analogy, I don't disagree that reviewers should test more. Part of why I choose not to consume HWUB's content is that I find their testing methodology and product coverage to be lacking compared to those that I do watch (GamersNexus, Der8auer, Buildzoid, etc). That said, I will not fault them for their conscious decision not to test something if they firmly believe their audience has no interest in it, regardless of what the manufacturer claims. I touched upon it slightly before, when I said such an attitude may be considered shooting themselves in the foot, but it's still their decision to make, and the consumers decision to make as to whether or not the review offered enough insight to inform their purchase decision.
     
    As for checking raytracing closely, I feel like this horse has been thoroughly beaten by pretty much everyone in this thread, though I'll give my brief feelings on the subject. Raytracing isn't a new concept, and we've had our mainstream introduction with last generations Turing cards. The performance has improved dramatically with the architectural redesign that allows concurrent graphics, RT and tensor operations simultaneously, but the actual technology itself is still very much the same. I didn't watch their RTX 3080 review, but if they covered this in said review, it's safe to assume this cards raytracing performance would see a similar uplift over the previous generation minus the scaling from it being cutdown compared to a 3080. Now I personally don't care about raytracing as I don't do a lot of work that would benefit from raytracing nor do I have the time for gaming much these days, but I do recognize that the technology itself is quite important and is likely going to be the future. His audience choosing to be more interested in rasterization performance isn't a bad thing either, nor would I fault a reviewer for giving his audience what they want. In fact, if given enough time, he would probably go back to test raytracing performance anyways because in this digital review age, content milking is how one survives. I don't think your feelings on this are wrong, nor do I disagree with the idea that more facets of a product should be covered if possible, but understand these are merely our personal opinions, and others may (and likely will) feel differently.
     
    I can't really speak as to why reviewers review products differently, short of saying they are different people with potentially different audiences. It's possible other reviewers didn't survey their target audience prior to performing the review, or their audience is double-dipping with reviewers and would rather get their in-depth information from a different personality and trust this particular reviewer for their rasterized gaming results? I genuinely do not know the answer to this, though I am not certain if it matters all that much in the end. There is always going to be a difference in the quality of reviewers, the coverage of a product and production quality of the videos themselves. Take LMG for example. I consider their production quality to be the best in the industry, but I personally do not consume their content because I find their testing methodology to be limited and caters more to Joe Everyman rather than someone that is an enthusiast in this industry. That isn't a bad thing per se as it reaches a far broader audience, and I would recommend LMG's content to someone getting into tech over a hyper analytical reviewer like Steve at Gamers Nexus, or the lunacy that is Der8auer and his "modifications". There are times where reviewers get it wrong (take Linus' old videos on memory speed not mattering and my holy crusade on this forum to try to disprove that) but those are very few and far between. Luckily we've seen reviewers be far more open to public opinion and reviewing their old content and applying their improved testing methodologies to revisit those claims.
     
    I'll end this by saying the piece of advice I offered you was not meant in a manner of disrespect, nor would I say you "need" to change here. You do have a manner of arrogance about you, but I do too, and I can respect that. It tends to come from those that are passionate about a topic and often finds themselves refusing to yield when they are firm in their resolve. My advice was offered as someone that has taken the time to look back and reflect on some of my older posts and cringe about the times I openly refused constructive feedback and information that could have better served me at the time. The people on this forum can be weird at times. You'll find some that have their quirks of irrationality when it comes to specific topics, yet they'll be extremely kind to you in a completely unrelated subject. You'll also find those that are far more interested in learning and will happily put their ego aside in pursuit of knowledge and others that have to win the e-debate by any means necessary. I am not asking you to back down when you are right or renege on your words when you feel you've conveyed honest information to the best of your abilities. I only ask that you consider alternative approaches when you reach a point of impasse. Use those aforementioned links to verified sources, ask for the opinions of others (as you did in this very thread) to determine if you're seeing the entire picture.
     
    Oh, and one more thing. You will see the post directly above mine and get the strongest urge to respond in a defensive manner. My best advice would be to read everything, summon the empathy you spoke of before, then determine if how he interpreted your posts was accurate to how you intended them to be perceived. If the answer is no, perhaps offer an apology for the misunderstanding and re-explain from a more nuanced point of view. If you want to kill this man with kindness, I am down for the tag-team of a lifetime.
  23. Like
    MageTank got a reaction from Nex6 in UPDATE: NVIDIA backtracks - Hardware Unboxed blacklisted from receiving GeForce FE review samples over “focus on rasterization over ray-tracing”   
    You need not define the word, I am well aware of what the word means. Further defining it won't make your reasoning any less of a leap in this context. Also, you are wrong by implying that empathy requires agreeing with whomever you are empathetic towards. I can understand someone on a psychological/emotional level whilst still disagreeing with them. @Nex6's use of the word empathy was not wrong by any means nor was it inaccurate in the context of which he spoke. Your interpretation of it was a reach given the narrative you were trying to spin it towards, which is where I take issue. 
     
    Where you and I do agree however, is that both Nvidia and the reviewer have no obligation to feel empathetic or understand one another in order for a product to be reviewed. Interpretation does not require two parties to come to an agreement as ones feelings are subjective and entirely their own. Now despite the subjective nature of ones feelings when reviewing the product, the purpose of the review is very objective, in that the goal is to inform potential buyers/consumers of your feelings on the product to make sure they are better informed prior to making a decision/purchase.
     
    I'll also ask that you not cherry pick his wording to fit your narrative. His quote in it's entirety was:
    Context is important, and it is never okay to omit context when it is convenient to the point you are making. In his exact words, he is expressing that he (Nex6) personally believes that the reviewer should consider Nvidia's thoughts and feelings in regards to what their product represents when they review the product. He goes on to state that they do not have to blindly follow those feelings, and that their review may even contradict or disprove Nvidia's marketing of the product. This was not represented in a manner to restrict the freedom of speech nor was the intent of his post to intentionally deceive reviewers by saying the manufacturer of the product under review should have a heavy hand in what is said/written about the product. His point was contrary to that, and was more bolstering his main claim that he (Nex6) would rather see the inclusion of additional testing (including claims made by the manufacturer) to see if they are in fact, true.
     
    You saw one part of the post, read too far into it, and neglected the entirety of the remaining context which why I found it disturbing. Again, I disagree with Nex6's notion that reviewers/companies should be empathetic towards one another, but I also did not see the blatant conflict of interest that you are painting it out to be either. Empathy in and of itself is not harmful, nor would I consider it a bias for an objective review. I am empathetic to the homeless people on my local street corners, but I am objective enough to know that giving them money directly likely won't aid them in the long run, so I make the difficult decision to move forward and give my money/time to the various shelters that try to feed and employ them. This analogy is best taken from the viewpoint that reviewers can still understand and empathize with a company while still calling them out on their mistakes and shortcomings.
     
    My point is simple. Don't read too far into what people say, especially if there is even a slight chance that you may misinterpret it. In this situation, it would be far better to ask him to clarify what he meant instead of falsely assuming the intent behind his post and twisting his words, potentially causing an unnecessary uproar. 
  24. Like
    MageTank got a reaction from leadeater in UPDATE: NVIDIA backtracks - Hardware Unboxed blacklisted from receiving GeForce FE review samples over “focus on rasterization over ray-tracing”   
    You need not define the word, I am well aware of what the word means. Further defining it won't make your reasoning any less of a leap in this context. Also, you are wrong by implying that empathy requires agreeing with whomever you are empathetic towards. I can understand someone on a psychological/emotional level whilst still disagreeing with them. @Nex6's use of the word empathy was not wrong by any means nor was it inaccurate in the context of which he spoke. Your interpretation of it was a reach given the narrative you were trying to spin it towards, which is where I take issue. 
     
    Where you and I do agree however, is that both Nvidia and the reviewer have no obligation to feel empathetic or understand one another in order for a product to be reviewed. Interpretation does not require two parties to come to an agreement as ones feelings are subjective and entirely their own. Now despite the subjective nature of ones feelings when reviewing the product, the purpose of the review is very objective, in that the goal is to inform potential buyers/consumers of your feelings on the product to make sure they are better informed prior to making a decision/purchase.
     
    I'll also ask that you not cherry pick his wording to fit your narrative. His quote in it's entirety was:
    Context is important, and it is never okay to omit context when it is convenient to the point you are making. In his exact words, he is expressing that he (Nex6) personally believes that the reviewer should consider Nvidia's thoughts and feelings in regards to what their product represents when they review the product. He goes on to state that they do not have to blindly follow those feelings, and that their review may even contradict or disprove Nvidia's marketing of the product. This was not represented in a manner to restrict the freedom of speech nor was the intent of his post to intentionally deceive reviewers by saying the manufacturer of the product under review should have a heavy hand in what is said/written about the product. His point was contrary to that, and was more bolstering his main claim that he (Nex6) would rather see the inclusion of additional testing (including claims made by the manufacturer) to see if they are in fact, true.
     
    You saw one part of the post, read too far into it, and neglected the entirety of the remaining context which why I found it disturbing. Again, I disagree with Nex6's notion that reviewers/companies should be empathetic towards one another, but I also did not see the blatant conflict of interest that you are painting it out to be either. Empathy in and of itself is not harmful, nor would I consider it a bias for an objective review. I am empathetic to the homeless people on my local street corners, but I am objective enough to know that giving them money directly likely won't aid them in the long run, so I make the difficult decision to move forward and give my money/time to the various shelters that try to feed and employ them. This analogy is best taken from the viewpoint that reviewers can still understand and empathize with a company while still calling them out on their mistakes and shortcomings.
     
    My point is simple. Don't read too far into what people say, especially if there is even a slight chance that you may misinterpret it. In this situation, it would be far better to ask him to clarify what he meant instead of falsely assuming the intent behind his post and twisting his words, potentially causing an unnecessary uproar. 
  25. Like
    MageTank got a reaction from leadeater in UPDATE: NVIDIA backtracks - Hardware Unboxed blacklisted from receiving GeForce FE review samples over “focus on rasterization over ray-tracing”   
    Thank you for taking the time to respond. I want to clarify the point of empathy, as I believe there may be some miscommunication here. I do not believe Nvidia should be empathetic towards reviewers or vice versa. My point on empathy was that companies typically lack the level of empathy required to understand the needs of individual consumers, which is why it's up to reviewers to shoulder that burden and help put themselves in the shoes of Joe Everyman. Nvidia does not need the empathy of reviewers or customers because as a business, Nvidia should put the needs of their company above all else. This includes customers. I've been vocal on this forum that the notion that the customer always comes first is a false one, and that in business, companies should prioritize their own survival first and foremost in order to provide jobs and maintain the livelihoods of those under their employ. This also extends to their ability to provide products and services to consumers. If a company puts customers above themselves, they are either lying, or they simply aren't in it for the long term. At the end of the day, it's Nvidia's job to offer a compelling product to consumers and win them over with said product. If Nvidia cannot do that on their own merits, it's not up to reviewers to do that job for them, even if reviewers are getting product for "free". Reviewers are not working on behalf of the companies, they serve the consumers. Now there is still that symbiotic relationship where their critical feedback can be used to offer product improvements and that in turn benefits the companies, but that is simply an added benefit, not the primary goal in this context. I believe the main issue with this entire ordeal was Nvidia (or whomever the individual was that sent the email) missed the opportunity to use HWUB's survey to their benefit. HWUB did the legwork and determined 70% of his audience didn't care about raytracing. Nvidia could have offered to pay for a promotional ad spot specifically for those features in an attempt to reach that untapped/uninterested market. This would have benefited all parties involved, but hindsight is 20/20...
     
    As for the car analogy, I don't disagree that reviewers should test more. Part of why I choose not to consume HWUB's content is that I find their testing methodology and product coverage to be lacking compared to those that I do watch (GamersNexus, Der8auer, Buildzoid, etc). That said, I will not fault them for their conscious decision not to test something if they firmly believe their audience has no interest in it, regardless of what the manufacturer claims. I touched upon it slightly before, when I said such an attitude may be considered shooting themselves in the foot, but it's still their decision to make, and the consumers decision to make as to whether or not the review offered enough insight to inform their purchase decision.
     
    As for checking raytracing closely, I feel like this horse has been thoroughly beaten by pretty much everyone in this thread, though I'll give my brief feelings on the subject. Raytracing isn't a new concept, and we've had our mainstream introduction with last generations Turing cards. The performance has improved dramatically with the architectural redesign that allows concurrent graphics, RT and tensor operations simultaneously, but the actual technology itself is still very much the same. I didn't watch their RTX 3080 review, but if they covered this in said review, it's safe to assume this cards raytracing performance would see a similar uplift over the previous generation minus the scaling from it being cutdown compared to a 3080. Now I personally don't care about raytracing as I don't do a lot of work that would benefit from raytracing nor do I have the time for gaming much these days, but I do recognize that the technology itself is quite important and is likely going to be the future. His audience choosing to be more interested in rasterization performance isn't a bad thing either, nor would I fault a reviewer for giving his audience what they want. In fact, if given enough time, he would probably go back to test raytracing performance anyways because in this digital review age, content milking is how one survives. I don't think your feelings on this are wrong, nor do I disagree with the idea that more facets of a product should be covered if possible, but understand these are merely our personal opinions, and others may (and likely will) feel differently.
     
    I can't really speak as to why reviewers review products differently, short of saying they are different people with potentially different audiences. It's possible other reviewers didn't survey their target audience prior to performing the review, or their audience is double-dipping with reviewers and would rather get their in-depth information from a different personality and trust this particular reviewer for their rasterized gaming results? I genuinely do not know the answer to this, though I am not certain if it matters all that much in the end. There is always going to be a difference in the quality of reviewers, the coverage of a product and production quality of the videos themselves. Take LMG for example. I consider their production quality to be the best in the industry, but I personally do not consume their content because I find their testing methodology to be limited and caters more to Joe Everyman rather than someone that is an enthusiast in this industry. That isn't a bad thing per se as it reaches a far broader audience, and I would recommend LMG's content to someone getting into tech over a hyper analytical reviewer like Steve at Gamers Nexus, or the lunacy that is Der8auer and his "modifications". There are times where reviewers get it wrong (take Linus' old videos on memory speed not mattering and my holy crusade on this forum to try to disprove that) but those are very few and far between. Luckily we've seen reviewers be far more open to public opinion and reviewing their old content and applying their improved testing methodologies to revisit those claims.
     
    I'll end this by saying the piece of advice I offered you was not meant in a manner of disrespect, nor would I say you "need" to change here. You do have a manner of arrogance about you, but I do too, and I can respect that. It tends to come from those that are passionate about a topic and often finds themselves refusing to yield when they are firm in their resolve. My advice was offered as someone that has taken the time to look back and reflect on some of my older posts and cringe about the times I openly refused constructive feedback and information that could have better served me at the time. The people on this forum can be weird at times. You'll find some that have their quirks of irrationality when it comes to specific topics, yet they'll be extremely kind to you in a completely unrelated subject. You'll also find those that are far more interested in learning and will happily put their ego aside in pursuit of knowledge and others that have to win the e-debate by any means necessary. I am not asking you to back down when you are right or renege on your words when you feel you've conveyed honest information to the best of your abilities. I only ask that you consider alternative approaches when you reach a point of impasse. Use those aforementioned links to verified sources, ask for the opinions of others (as you did in this very thread) to determine if you're seeing the entire picture.
     
    Oh, and one more thing. You will see the post directly above mine and get the strongest urge to respond in a defensive manner. My best advice would be to read everything, summon the empathy you spoke of before, then determine if how he interpreted your posts was accurate to how you intended them to be perceived. If the answer is no, perhaps offer an apology for the misunderstanding and re-explain from a more nuanced point of view. If you want to kill this man with kindness, I am down for the tag-team of a lifetime.
×