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

wanderingfool2

Member
  • Content Count

    572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards

This user doesn't have any awards

About wanderingfool2

  • Title
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Until it actually leaves the lab (or even a prototype disc/reader/writer) it is just like the battery tech out there...tons of promise but no actual real world results. The 700 tb, is the theoretical maximum that they could store with this method as well (so gen 1 or gen 2 would most definitly be a lot lower). It reminds me a bit of the Holographic Versatile Disc that was attempting to be made into production back in 2007 (where they showed a 5TB prototype disc...that cost around $150 if produced, but the reader cost $10k). It went belly up, but the tech was there...just not really feasible
  2. M-Disks are neat, but slow to burn (as it's essentially etching the bits into stone). *Maybe the tech has changed since I last used M-Disks though* The condition can play a role (direct light will rot disks a lot quicker)...it also depends on the type of disc burned. Some of the brands later on used worse dyes and such to achieve cheaper costs, but it had the downside that they were more susceptible to CD rot. (I have a few discs that were burned at roughly the same time, and stored away the exact same...just different brands and some brands just are garbage data now)
  3. I don't think it's right to use consumer rights as a way to show Monopoly. In this day and age, Android is a viable alternative...although one can be said that they do use tactics that are an abuse of power in locking people into their ecosystem (ie reduce functionality of devices when not used on their platform), but that isn't a reason or argument in this particular case. What is more of a monopoly on Apple part is that developers are locked into the App Store, while Apple holds the monopoly (to be clear in the US, they have less than 50% of devices but over 50% of the sales rev
  4. Yes, this one is a lot better video; thanks. Still has issues in that they don't use the same model, but their conclusion is still pretty solid. The Tom's Hardware though still bugs me in the sense that they didn't list their source for it being "dusty" and without changed pads...actually, the article itself really shouldn't have been written given there isn't any real substance to it. With that said as well, it could change based on the type of person you bought the mining card from (someone who undervolts/doesn't undervolt) vs someone who has 1 GPU mining vs a whole bank of GPU
  5. The video itself isn't well done (in that they don't provide any summary information)...but at the same time, they didn't provide any information about the condition of the video card...unless I am missing something, which if so feel free to correct me as I honestly could have (See below) What's interesting is that Tom's Hardware just magically comes to the conclusion that it was clogged in dust. It would be safe to maybe assume that the pads/paste weren't switched, which I think the average gamer wouldn't know how to do. The source video though isn't well done though, in that they d
  6. @Nena Trinity While the link you provided does use Audible, it's ACX not Audible...which does change things up quite a bit. While Amazon still owns ACX and Audible, ACX acts as the publisher and Audible acts as the distributor. In this case ACX is the one that is giving the 40% cut, which also includes on things like iTunes It's ACX, and it applies on sales to iTunes as well by the looks of things. Still terrible, but an important distinction (as in it makes it a worse since it feels more like collusion) Well ACX does cover iTunes, audible and amazon sales...s
  7. Should be pointed out, audio books not ebooks (as the ebook royalties are better). With that said, the refund policy is terrible. That would be for e-books (which on Amazon e-books priced between $3 - $10 only 30% is taken)...actually Apple for e-books was actually fined for price collusion (they wanted to lift prices to $14 or something, while Amazon was incentivizing pricing at $9.99). From what I've quickly gathered from quickly googling it's not an Audible controversy but ACX. Still owned by Amazon, but different. 40% when exclusive to ACX (which in
  8. That assumes that the chips they are using will actually take up the same amount of production line. Let's say they get the chips from ones that don't quite meet the specs or have flaws in the graphics areas (not important to mining). Instead of scrapping those chips, they could recycle them into CMP's. Not saying that this is the case, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's partially the case.
  9. I think the point behind this is that if there is going to be limited stocks, nVidia wants to sell it to the people they care about more. It would be different if they released drivers after the fact that nerfed performance, but on an unreleased product I don't care as much. It's their way of forcing the market towards gamers...since they can't really stop businesses from mass selling to miners. It also sets a distinction between consumer grade vs work grade computing. It is like someone wanting to buy out DisneyWorld for a few days (and Disney World refusing citing that they wa
  10. I do agree there shouldn't be none-replaceable drives, but it's not like there isn't sometimes purposes behind doing so. It does reduce the thickness, but it also likely is a cost saving measure. With using a slot, you would have to likely do more work in getting the design correct (and installation correct)...all of which would add to the cost (to Apple). In regards to the topic, hopefully this will end up being just a software reporting bug (and not actually real writes to the drive). If it is putting this much writes on a drive, then really hope Apple fixes
  11. Not really, buying for the intent to force the hand of another into a losing position to force a short squeeze is market manipulation. Buying it because you believe it's oversold and you feel it will increase is okay. The fact that you buy for the purpose of hurting people with a short position (and "holding" the stock for that purpose) is market manipulation. Him saying that he is buying it had little effect (his prior tweets before doing so did help increase the price...but then again it also increased the price of all cryptocurrencies)....and he was going along with the m
  12. So, out of curiosity, what is your opinion on Linus/GameStop? Given what Linus had said, and the fact he bought it (albeit while it was going down) would potentially make it illegal. Actually, anyone who bought GME for the purpose of forcing the short sellers to buy at a higher price would be manipulating the market. (think buying it because you think the stock will increase, vs buying a stock to force a short squeeze/hurt short sellers...one is market manipulation and one speculative buying). Honestly though at this point, short of Elon actually saying something intentionally t
  13. You didn't post any source in your wall of text...but what I said is still accurate. If you were referring to things like the following, then just beware that the reporting wasn't actually fully accurate https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-compensation-over-2-billion-2019-5 His compensation package is defined on performance goals (in terms of the stock). The problem is that they have hit the 8 year goal in less than 2, which means everything really was accelerated (and it's paid out in 12 chunks over the course of 10 years).
  14. There has been a considerable amount of news/reviews that is fabricated or highly misleading statements in it (e.g. The consumer reports that put autopilot at a distance second because they essentially took points away for the fact autopilot can be turned on anywhere, instead of it being restricted). So if you want are claiming Tesla is so worse than other companies, then tell me a company that hasn't had issues (some much worse)? e.g. GM declaring their vehicles were safe to drive (The ignition switch scandal, which they knew was deadly but didn't do anything about until they
  15. Well there are a few things wrong with that logic...the first being, Musk isn't Tesla. The second being, even if you included Musk's wealth, like many billionaire's he is rich on paper. A lot of his wealth would be tied up in stocks/assets. Well in that regards though, the newer MCU's (Mid 2018 and later) do have larger capacity (and thus should wear a lot less). Ultimately though, the thing to look at is the other car manufactures have been guilty of downplaying even more dangerous things. It isn't like it's an uncommon practice. e.g. The key ignit
×