Your unpopular (non-political, non-offensive) opinions!

[TheCoverUp]

4 minutes ago, Benji said:

I rather think that there are other things at play like the not-developed brain of a newborn or the fact that not everything in your life is actually relevant to you (or anybody, as a matter of fact). Very few things in life matter. Even people that are very old will remember their first kiss, their first time, their school graduation, their wedding day and stuff like that. That's why you constantly have to work on skills to keep them alive (like languages), otherwise they'll be deemed unnecessary by your subcontiousness and will be kicked out. And what kind of clothing you wear or the same things happening at work for 30+ years are irrelevant. I'll turn 24 next month and even I don't remember a lot of stuff that has happened in my life because most of it was irrelevant, and it's very obvious that it was/is when something triggers a certain, random memory, like talking to old childhood friends and the ridiculous things that you did or how whatever at school was.

Memory doesn't work like a storage medium in a computer, as a matter of fact, you'll remember only very sparse things and the rest is a recreation based on your current state of mind, which is why a memory that you have now will be different in a year.

I have had few dreams which I have never forgotten too.......one was a nightamre type dream and one was a insecurity type dream....... these explain why we remember few things throughout our life...so the dreams we forget are like how we forget unimportant things in real life....... that is if it is real...reminds me of the movie inception...lol

[TheCoverUp]

1 minute ago, Benji said:

Nightmares cause a strong emotion (fear), that's why they linger. I also had a few recurrent nightmares that I still remember because they always play in practically the same way. Then I also remember a (NFSW) dream with one of my best friends that I haven't had contact with him for pretty much exactly 5 years by this point and I miss him. Otherwise that would not be such an unusual dream and I would've forgotten about it.

Anything that has some emotional effect on you is something that you'll remember, the rest usually gets tossed.

As if I remember what I've dreamt about three days ago ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

exactly how it happens in real life.... if it is real...

[Trik'Stari]

Pizza is best eaten with a knife and fork.

NYC pizza isn't that good.

NYC hotdog carts are terrible, hotdogs should never be boiled.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

Cyclists are a road hazard and belong on the sidewalk, not on the road.

Cyclists and pedestrians should not have the right of way, because it creates a false sense of security and it's how you end up with idiots that just blindly walk out into the road without looking, or cyclists who disobey all traffic laws then yell share the road at cars.

 

Get a damn car.

 

Addendum: Carolina style "bbq" is actually terrible.

 

*sits back to await incoming hate*

[TheCoverUp]

warning: do not try lucid dreaming.trying it might make you not dream at all.

[TheCoverUp]

1 minute ago, Benji said:

I do have occasional dreams that I have some influence about because I am somehow conscious, but that happens very rarely. But I don't even know why you would want to lucid dream in the first place.

 

Spoiler

actually lucid dreaming allows you to achieve what you couldn't in real life like done in the movie inception... I tried it 6 months ago but since then I haven't had a single dream....  

 

[Trik'Stari]

8 minutes ago, Benji said:

Oh, thank you very much. I am certain that way more than half of the cyclist have no idea that not only cars have to stick to the traffic laws, but they have to do so as well. Then they'll speed around the corner in the opposite direction of a one-way street and have the audacity to complain about you and your (supposedly) wrong driving behaviour even though they actually go against the rules. And usually you also see them drive like maniacs in general and also switching from the street to the sidewalk just to get over a traffic light and what not, and then they have the audacity to complain about cycling being so dangerous due to the car drivers.

I think that it should be really overworked on how to handle situations involving bikes and force them to adhere to the rules, like you do with a drivers licence. They need to be educated that they also have a responsibility and are not always innocent and can do whatever they want becasue they aren't driving a car. Just like how drunk bike riding is usually "acceptable" unless your blood alcohol goes massively overboard, while you'll lose your drivers licence should they catch you with more than 0.5 permille which doesn't affect cyclists.

It's odd how they behave like mad men in the city, then when they put on their wannabe lance armstrong outfits and come out to rural areas, they lose the ability to go faster than a 83 year old grandmother with a walker.

 

They occasionally mob the road my dad lives on, where I used to live. And when I'm coming home on an already hour long commute, from a long day of actual work, I don't want to stare at a bunch of jackasses who think the road is their personal exercise area. And this is a 55mph back road with plenty of blind turns.

 

Then they act shocked and horrified whenever one gets run over and it ends up in the paper, and I sit there thinking "You're riding around in traffic on a vehicle that cannot go the speed limit, what did you think was going to happen?!"

[TomvanWijnen]

31 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Cyclists are a road hazard and belong on the sidewalk, not on the road.

Yeah, cyclists need their own "roads/paths", so cycling becomes more attractive than driving.

[Dredgy]

I’ll keep it tech related.

• High frame rate is one of the least important things in gaming. Good colours, detail, contrast, brightness, audio solution and peripherals are much more important areas to spend money.
• Super Mario Galaxy is a mediocre game,

[Arika]

1. Windows 10 is a fantastic OS.
2. 4 cores are perfectly usable for 99% of today's tasks and games
3. More Multiplayer games should have Bots/AI/offline play
4. Mobile games can be fun

[TomvanWijnen]

13 minutes ago, Benji said:

Due to the fact that nobody that I know lives closer than 10km to work, and judging by how unreliable public transportation is, it never will to the degree that the politicians want it as their marketing slogan, especially not to workers that have to get to their customers.

Seems like you live in a different part of Germany than what I've seen with my own eyes.

 

According to a random source, more than 50% of people [EDIT: in the Netherlands] live within 15 km of their work. Thus, here in the Netherlands many people cycle to work, to school, to the station for public transport, to many things.

[TheCoverUp]

18 minutes ago, Arika S said:

4 cores are perfectly usable for 99% of today's tasks and games

cries in dual core

[Lii]

Humanitaries studies are mainly needed for inductrination purposes

 

 

[Deli]

Why do I see many with budget or midrange component PCs, like with CPU 4790K or Ryzen 5 3600, Corsair CX PSU, want to upgrade to RTX 3090? The RTX 3090 easily three time the cost of the rest of the other components combined.

[pythonmegapixel]

  

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

They occasionally mob the road my dad lives on, where I used to live. And when I'm coming home on an already hour long commute, from a long day of actual work, I don't want to stare at a bunch of jackasses who think the road is their personal exercise area. And this is a 55mph back road with plenty of blind turns.

That's a problem with the road.

 

Why the hell would you have a 55 limit on a road with blind turns which is used by cyclists? Whoever designed that needs to be fired.

 

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

Cyclists are a road hazard and belong on the sidewalk, not on the road.

They're only a road hazard if you make them one.

If you are driving defensively, they aren't a problem.

 

But you're right cyclists don't belong on the road. Where they belong is on cycle paths, but outside of major cities (and the Netherlands) there are pathetically few of them. Drivers whinge about cyclists on the road AND about cyclists getting their own dedicated infrastructure - make your mind up! You can't have it both ways!

Quote

Cyclists and pedestrians should not have the right of way, because it creates a false sense of security and it's how you end up with idiots that just blindly walk out into the road without looking, or cyclists who disobey all traffic laws then yell share the road at cars.

Cars should not have right of way because it creates a false sense of security and that's how you end up with idiots who just turn into side roads and mow down pedestrians who were crossing safely.

 

See my point?

 

Quote

Get a damn car.

Uhhh... why?

If I have a journey which I can make either for free and in an environmentally friendly on a vehicle which costs about £300 (a bike), or for the cost of fuel in a polluting manner on a vehicle that costs 100 times that (a car), which am I going to choose?

 

The inherent design of American cities mean that most people don't have that choice, and that is a bad thing.

 

[GuacInWhereSunDontShine]

Here's a hot take for ya: chocolate is the most disgusting food on this planet. 

[GuacInWhereSunDontShine]

Just now, Benji said:

Chocolate is among the richest, multi-faceted foods you can even buy (that's why there's super cheap and really expensive chocolate, they accumulate their flavour from surrounding plants). I can see why you'd say that if you try 85%+ chocolate as that is really bitter, but chocolate is certainly not the most disgusting food on the planet and you're actually in a minority with that. Still interesting to hear that that really is a thing. Try thousand-year-eggs, pig's head, pig's trotters, sürströmming or other literally rotten food (pig's head or trotters aren't rotten, I know, but they're really not my thing and can even make me vomit).

 

People disliking chocolate is also really, really rare IIRC.

Yeah, I often get called an alien (jokingly of course) because of the opinion, but I will say, white chocolate IS top notch.

[GuacInWhereSunDontShine]

2 minutes ago, Benji said:

That's because it's not actually made of cocoa beans at all, but rather out of cocoa butter. And among any other type of chocolate it is the one with the highest amount of sugar, by far. I actually eat any kind of chocolate unless it has equal or less than 70% cocoa. For my 11th birthday or so, my "step grandma" gave me an 85% chocolate and it was so bitter that it made me nauseous. But the 100 grams tablet lasted me a month or so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's interesting, I figured that is what it was. Do you have any recommendations for chocolate that doesn't taste bitter?

[TheCoverUp]

3 hours ago, CSWX said:

chocolate is the most disgusting food on this planet. 

I semi agree to it ..... the process of making smells so  bad I could literally puke.but the end product tastes great!

[PlayStation 2]

Here's one that'll definitely get shat and/or praised on: wagons are the peak evolution of car. The practicality of an SUV combined with the driving feel and height of a regular sedan with the visibility of a minivan is something I cannot give up anymore.

[Rybo]

6 hours ago, PacketMan said:

conspiration

Conspiration is my new favorite word.  

[Trik'Stari]

9 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

  

That's a problem with the road.

 

Why the hell would you have a 55 limit on a road with blind turns which is used by cyclists? Whoever designed that needs to be fired.

 

They're only a road hazard if you make them one.

If you are driving defensively, they aren't a problem.

 

But you're right cyclists don't belong on the road. Where they belong is on cycle paths, but outside of major cities (and the Netherlands) there are pathetically few of them. Drivers whinge about cyclists on the road AND about cyclists getting their own dedicated infrastructure - make your mind up! You can't have it both ways!

Cars should not have right of way because it creates a false sense of security and that's how you end up with idiots who just turn into side roads and mow down pedestrians who were crossing safely.

 

See my point?

 

Uhhh... why?

If I have a journey which I can make either for free and in an environmentally friendly on a vehicle which costs about £300 (a bike), or for the cost of fuel in a polluting manner on a vehicle that costs 100 times that (a car), which am I going to choose?

 

The inherent design of American cities mean that most people don't have that choice, and that is a bad thing.

 

Actually I don't mind people that are obviously using bicycles for transportation. I mind the jerk-offs who think they're in the Tour De France.

 

If they want exercise they can go to a park, or a gym, or go ****ing swimming or something, stop cluttering up my roads. Hell, get a stationary bike (I reject any argument that it's not the same, because it's better, because you aren't outdoors with bugs heat, and cars/trucks that can flatten you.)

 

As for that particular road, it's fine in a car, truck, box truck, dump truck, etc. (all of which make regular use of that road). It absolutely is not appropriate for bicycles.

 

And I don't live in the inner city so I don't really care what they do there. Just stop the damned cyclists from coming out to rural areas and causing traffic jams because they don't have the goddamn common courtesy to pull over and let traffic pass. They make themselves a road hazard by being there unnecessarily, and by going significantly slower than traffic. In a car that's usually considered "obstructing traffic".

 

I don't care if they get their own bike paths. Although I'd argue "that's called a sidewalk". Which, where I live, there are many, that see VERY little foot traffic and are well maintained. Yet cyclists aren't allowed to use them for some reason so ridiculous that only a government bureaucrat could potentially understand it. If I had to guess, it's because they had a cyclist run over their foot as a child and have harbored a grudge against them ever since, and thus want to make everyone else suffer these lollygagging fools.

 

The depths to which I loathe cyclists are Dr. Seuss levels. I do not hesitate to blow my horn at them, and I will never feel bad about it. I find it amusing when they wipe out all on their own.

 

  

10 hours ago, TomvanWijnen said:

Yeah, cyclists need their own "roads/paths", so cycling becomes more attractive than driving.

Counter proposal: We do that, so we know who to eliminate from the gene pool.

[pythonmegapixel]

27 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Actually I don't mind people that are obviously using bicycles for transportation. I mind the jerk-offs who think they're in the Tour De France.

 

If they want exercise they can go to a park, or a gym, or go ****ing swimming or something, stop cluttering up my roads. Hell, get a stationary bike (I reject any argument that it's not the same, because it's better, because you aren't outdoors with bugs heat, and cars/trucks that can flatten you.)

 

As for that particular road, it's fine in a car, truck, box truck, dump truck, etc. (all of which make regular use of that road). It absolutely is not appropriate for bicycles.

Then changes need to be made to the road to make it appropriate for bicycles.

 

Quote

 

And I don't live in the inner city so I don't really care what they do there. Just stop the damned cyclists from coming out to rural areas and causing traffic jams because they don't have the goddamn common courtesy to pull over and let traffic pass. They make themselves a road hazard by being there unnecessarily, and by going significantly slower than traffic. In a car that's usually considered "obstructing traffic".

 

I don't care if they get their own bike paths. Although I'd argue "that's called a sidewalk". Which, where I live, there are many, that see VERY little foot traffic and are well maintained. Yet cyclists aren't allowed to use them for some reason so ridiculous that only a government bureaucrat could potentially understand it. If I had to guess, it's because they had a cyclist run over their foot as a child and have harbored a grudge against them ever since, and thus want to make everyone else suffer these lollygagging fools.

 

The depths to which I loathe cyclists are Dr. Seuss levels. I do not hesitate to blow my horn at them, and I will never feel bad about it. I find it amusing when they wipe out all on their own.

 

A lot of your problems are only caused by bad cyclists, such as those who swerve around the road, go on the inside of buses, or don't signal correctly. (PSA: Drivers make this mistake too. If you run me over because I'm crossing a road that you turned into without signalling then it is 100% your fault).

 

I'd wager you live somewhere where people are stupid and don't know how to cycle on the road. Or where people don't know how to drive around cyclists.

 

Where I live, drivers can easily overtake cyclists, because cyclists leave enough room to do so. Great.

But also, drivers have the basic level of common sense required to, for example, not overtake cyclists who are signalling to turn across their path - so that's a right turn in the UK, and left in much of the rest of the world (and if you didn't know you aren't supposed to do that, then you shouldn't be allowed to drive). Also great. It's a two-way thing.

 

It is blatantly incorrect to place all the blame on cyclists. If you are a driver, then you are also part of the problem.

 

The other thing I will criticise is your stigma against people who like to be outdoors. Ever considered that people might like fresh air and the feeling of freedom?

[Trik'Stari]

51 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Then changes need to be made to the road to make it appropriate for bicycles.

 

A lot of your problems are only caused by bad cyclists, such as those who swerve around the road, go on the inside of buses, or don't signal correctly. (PSA: Drivers make this mistake too. If you run me over because I'm crossing a road that you turned into without signalling then it is 100% your fault).

 

I'd wager you live somewhere where people are stupid and don't know how to cycle on the road. Or where people don't know how to drive around cyclists.

 

Where I live, drivers can easily overtake cyclists, because cyclists leave enough room to do so. Great.

But also, drivers have the basic level of common sense required to, for example, not overtake cyclists who are signalling to turn across their path - so that's a right turn in the UK, and left in much of the rest of the world (and if you didn't know you aren't supposed to do that, then you shouldn't be allowed to drive). Also great. It's a two-way thing.

 

It is blatantly incorrect to place all the blame on cyclists. If you are a driver, then you are also part of the problem.

 

The other thing I will criticise is your stigma against people who like to be outdoors. Ever considered that people might like fresh air and the feeling of freedom?

People who don't signal when turning should have their drivers license or any other right to operate a vehicle (bike or car) revoked after the third time, permanently.

 

Based on your description, that would be 90% of the cycling community where I live. They think they own the road because they "have the right of way". Which is why I think motorized vehicles should always have the right of way on the road. Also because in that contest, the motorized vehicle always wins over the pedestrian or cyclist. Not in a court of law, but physically. That object that weighs more than 2 tons and is traveling at speed, is going to win.

 

As for being outdoors, they can go to parks or use the sidewalks, I'm fine with either. Just don't play in traffic. They could go swimming, which would actually be better for them as an exercise. It also has the added benefit of not being run over, and not holding up traffic.

 

It's not always possible in the US to overtake cyclists safely, and because I know the law will side with them 100% of the time, I do not do so unless it is very, very clearly safe. I'll honk at them, but I will not overtake them.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

12 hours ago, Dredgy said:

Super Mario Galaxy is a mediocre game

He said opinions, not lies.

12 hours ago, Dredgy said:

High frame rate is one of the least important things in gaming. Good colours, detail, contrast, brightness, audio solution and peripherals are much more important areas to spend money.

Wrong. That may be the case for you, but for most people, they prefer to have better reactions and over all performance, as has been found on numerous tests, one of which by ltt.

[Dredgy]

3 hours ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

Wrong. That may be the case for you, but for most people, they prefer to have better reactions and over all performance, as has been found on numerous tests, one of which by ltt.

Hence “opinion”. But I’ve watched the LTT tests - and a few others.  it shows that there is an increased performance on higher refresh rates, it doesn’t show that people in general prefer that over a super immersive experience.