Firefox 57 (aka Quantum) out now. Huge performance improvements.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

You focused on the wrong part. The US requirements are after corrective lenses. I don't know if it is like that in other countries.

Makes more sense now. Didn't know about that part of the requirements.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, Hellion said:

much higher standards in every aspect.

Same exact standards as class 2, and only slightly stricter than class 4, with worst eye being the same except for taxis . Class 3 can be attained at 16, two years earlier than class 1, but otherwise shares all other requirements.

 

An average person  with a class 5 could get a class 1 if they wanted to.

 

Which is no different that any average American wanting a CDL.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Hellion said:

Clearly reading isn't your strong point.

 

A class 1 is the top license available here and the operator is held to much higher standards in every aspect.

 

A forklift ticket is not at all related and issued by a third party.

Clearly manners are not your strong point.

In my country a forklift is a seperate licence not an endoresement - so you must excuse the misunderstanding.

 

In a more practical sense eyesight isn't that important when driving tbh. You can either drive or you can't. I can even drive without my glasses (happens more times than you think if you live in a dry area and usually wear contacts). Its a combination of sensory awareness and ability to operate. This is not reflected in the requirements for a licence and you can definitely tell who can drive and who can't

 

(And take everything I say with a grain of salt because I don't live in Canada or the US - roads are very different where I live. You can tell that because tourists who drive here are absolute muppets. One guy on the news a few days ago completely flipped his car and ran it about 100m off the road. Claimed it was not his fault as the road was "slippery", this is in summer in the dryest part of the year and it is definitely not slippery. Needless the say the cop that got him was not impressed by his attitude!)

[Hellion]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

An average person  with a class 5 could get a class 1 if they wanted to.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

Either way, you are wrong.

 

The average person knows nothing about double clutch manual shifting, air brakes or how to back up a 52 foot long trailer at a right angle between a 10 foot opening. Then add LCV requirements on top of that and you'd be so lost it would be laughable.

 

Anyways, this isn't about how easy you think it is to obtain a class 1 which has a much higher first time road test failure rate then a class 5.

 

It's about vick and the peanut gallery throwing out claims of "bad eye sight" when they have no accreditation to do so.

[pyrojoe34]

41 minutes ago, Hellion said:

What does this have to do with anything?

 

 

 

Either way, you are wrong.

 

 

 

The average person knows nothing about double clutch manual shifting, air brakes or how to back up a 52 foot long trailer at a right angle between a 10 foot opening. Then add LCV requirements on top of that and you'd be so lost it would be laughable.

 

 

 

Anyways, this isn't about how easy you think it is to obtain a class 1 which has a much higher first time road test failure rate then a class 5.

 

 

 

It's about vick and the peanut gallery throwing out claims of "bad eye sight" when they have no accreditation to do so.

 

 

 

Dude why are you being so defensive and so rude about it... this has gotten severely off topic from the original post.

[Hellion]

9 minutes ago, pyrojoe34 said:

Dude why are you being so defensive and so rude about it... this has gotten severely off topic from the original post.

I'm not defensive at all. I'm just a realist that's correcting fallacies because i've grown tired of seeing so many of them on a regular basis here.

[Drak3]

11 minutes ago, Hellion said:

I'm not defensive at all. I'm just a realist that's correcting fallacies because i've grown tired of seeing so many of them on a regular basis here.

You've yet to correct one cotton picking thing.

[Hellion]

40 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

You've yet to correct one cotton picking thing.

According to the guy that says the average person with a class 5 can get a class 1.

 

I guess the examiners are just there for shits and giggles, right?

[Drak3]

7 minutes ago, Hellion said:

According to the guy that says the average person with a class 5 can get a class 1.

 

I guess the examiners are just there for shits and giggles, right?

When one learns to drive the vehicle itself, yes. Beyond the test, the requirements don't rule that many people out. And the test itself only rules out those that either:

A) Are incompetent in that vehicle with an absolution.

B) Have not familiarized themselves with the vehicle.

 

So, if someone truly wants a CDL, and they can get a standard driver's license, they can get a CDL.

[Hellion]

27 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

When one learns to drive the vehicle itself, yes. Beyond the test, the requirements don't rule that many people out. And the test itself only rules out those that either:

A) Are incompetent in that vehicle with an absolution.

B) Have not familiarized themselves with the vehicle.

 

So, if someone truly wants a CDL, and they can get a standard driver's license, they can get a CDL.

And by that notion anyone that studies to become a surgeon or a pilot can also do so. Obviously that's the case but that's not what you originally stated.

 

Or are we moving the goal posts now?

 

My initial point is that I clearly don't have "bad eye sight" when a qualified optometrist has deemed the opposite as it's imperative to my livelihood. So this was a bullshit excuse to justify the initial claim.

 

Not sure what there is to not understand about that at this point. You are reaching so desperately that this is going no where near what my original gripe was about.

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, Hellion said:

My initial point is that I clearly don't have "bad eye sight" when a qualified optometrist has deemed the opposite as it's imperative to my livelihood. So this was a bullshit excuse to justify the initial claim.

6/9. That's the hopeful minimum. Under 6/30 is the minimum for one eye. The first, is poor eyesight. The second is horrid vision.

 

So:

Either you have bad eyesight that is good enough to get you a CDL

You're lying about having a CDL

Your setup artifacts all examples beyond distiction

[Hellion]

14 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

6/9. That's the hopeful minimum. Under 6/30 is the minimum for one eye. The first, is poor eyesight. The second is horrid vision.

 

So:

Either you have bad eyesight that is good enough to get you a CDL

You're lying about having a CDL

Your setup artifacts all examples beyond distiction

-It’s not called a “CDL”

-20/20 unaided isn’t “bad” by any distinction and in fact above average in Canada

-I’ll gladly provide a copy of my Class 1 with all the private data removed if you can provide a VIDEO showing “significant” difference under the previously argued criteria

-A 6700K/Vega 56 sure as hell isn’t artifacting youtube videos

 

I'm leaving for another 2 day trip. I'll be returning then to see your evidence so you have plenty of time to prepare. Sadly, I'm not expecting much but I would love to be proven wrong.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Hellion said:

-A 6700K/Vega 56 sure as hell isn’t artifacting youtube videos

Having a stronger GPU/CPU shouldn't change the amount of artifacts caused by the video compression. (If you have information that says otherwise please do say so, and no I don't mean deartifacting filters.)

[Hellion]

7 minutes ago, tjcater said:

Having a stronger GPU/CPU shouldn't change the amount of artifacts caused by the video compression. (If you have information that says otherwise please do say so, and no I don't mean deartifacting filters.)

 

37 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Your SETUP artifacts all examples beyond distiction

[Dabombinable]

Just now, Hellion said:

 

Eg. The videos aren't being decoded correctly by your computer, leading to artifacting (I've had it happen before with a bad driver for my GTX 650ti).

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Hellion said:

 

45 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Your setup artifacts all examples beyond distiction

 

5 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Eg. The videos aren't being decoded correctly by your computer, leading to artifacting (I've had it happen before with a bad driver for my GTX 650ti).

@Drak3  Was the text meant to be interpreted as @Dabombinable put it, or are you saying that stronger hardware reduces artifacting?

[Drak3]

22 minutes ago, Hellion said:

-It’s not called a “CDL"

Commercial Driver's License. A license above class 5 or class D.

22 minutes ago, Hellion said:

-A 6700K/Vega 56 sure as hell isn’t artifacting youtube videos

You act as if those are the only variables.

Or that they make any fucking difference on prerendered, compressed content.

And your setup is more than just your PC.

22 minutes ago, Hellion said:

-20/20 unaided isn’t “bad” by any distinction and in fact above average in Canada

Now, I know you're full of shit. 20/20 is, by definition, average. It means you see at 20ft, what the average person can see 20ft out and not further.

 

22 minutes ago, Hellion said:

-I’ll gladly provide a copy of my Class 1 with all the private data removed if you can provide a VIDEO showing “significant” difference under the previously argued criteria

When the player hits Mars' surface, the gusts of dust are artifacting in 1080p, but not 4K.

After the excursion on the surface, just before and after the player collects the first Doom Toy, you can see the environment artifacting as it moves away from the reticle or by areas of contrasting tints/shades. It still exists in 4K for the latter, but to much less of an extent.

10 minutes ago, tjcater said:

 

@Drak3  Was the text meant to be interpreted as @Dabombinable put it, or are you saying that stronger hardware reduces artifacting?

Dabombinable is correct. Strong hardware doesn't mean a damn if your source is shit, heavily compressed, drivers have issues, drivers installed incorrectly, or your hardware lacks a specific component that doesn't let it do x.

[iRandomize]

I've been using Firefox 57 (Quantum) exclusively since launch. On both Windows and macOS. Long story short, on Windows its amazing. I see no perceivable difference between Chrome and Firefox, except for much less ram usage in Firefox. I do not switching back to Chrome or Edge. And on top of that, i really like being on an independent browser.

 

However, on macOS it really sucks. It may be really snappy at times, but sometimes it really bogs down. And i have no idea why. I had to switch back to Chrome which just seems to perform much more consistently. I'm probably the only one on these forums finding myself on a mac at times (and btw, i prefer Windows 10, and spend like 80-90% on Windows!), but if anyone else have any experience with sluggish performance on a mac, please let me know! I would really love to switch to Firefox, and completely leave Chrome behind! Also. I like the look of Firefox 57 better

 

On the entire 1080p vs 4k discussion: I do see a difference between 4k, 1440p and 1080p Youtube content, and i have nowhere near perfect eyesight. Someone should make a poll on this, and when it turns out 99% to 1%, it has to be more than just placebo...

[dalekphalm]

16 hours ago, Hellion said:

-It’s not called a “CDL”

-20/20 unaided isn’t “bad” by any distinction and in fact above average in Canada

-I’ll gladly provide a copy of my Class 1 with all the private data removed if you can provide a VIDEO showing “significant” difference under the previously argued criteria

-A 6700K/Vega 56 sure as hell isn’t artifacting youtube videos

 

I'm leaving for another 2 day trip. I'll be returning then to see your evidence so you have plenty of time to prepare. Sadly, I'm not expecting much but I would love to be proven wrong.

We provided evidence. You said it's not discernible.

 

You've made the "criteria" impossible to prove (or disprove, for that matter). You've created an unreasonable level of evidence.

 

1. We know for a fact that there are "technical" differences between 4K downscaled to 1080p vs Native 1080p, on Youtube.

2. Myself, among many many others, have said we can perceive that difference.

3. You claim we're wrong.

 

I think that's about the end of it, isn't it?

 

We're not going to change your mind.

 

For anyone else? Please don't listen to him. Look at the facts yourself, and then see the comparisons. It's easy to notice the difference, if you care about those details.

 

For anyone who doesn't care about the differences? Easy way to save on bandwidth.

[Hellion]

On 12/5/2017 at 4:40 PM, Drak3 said:

Commercial Driver's License. A license above class 5 or class D.

You act as if those are the only variables.

Or that they make any fucking difference on prerendered, compressed content.

And your setup is more than just your PC.

Now, I know you're full of shit. 20/20 is, by definition, average. It means you see at 20ft, what the average person can see 20ft out and not further.

 

When the player hits Mars' surface, the gusts of dust are artifacting in 1080p, but not 4K.

After the excursion on the surface, just before and after the player collects the first Doom Toy, you can see the environment artifacting as it moves away from the reticle or by areas of contrasting tints/shades. It still exists in 4K for the latter, but to much less of an extent.

Dabombinable is correct. Strong hardware doesn't mean a damn if your source is shit, heavily compressed, drivers have issues, drivers installed incorrectly, or your hardware lacks a specific component that doesn't let it do x.

"CDL" is an amurican term. After being in the trucking business for nearly a decade I can say with certainty that I have never come across anyone using that term in the industry to date.

 

I'm aware of that. However, maybe you should explain what you mean more thoroughly next time because those of us that speak english as a first language will interpret what you typed to mean that that you think hardware will effect the outcome of a pre-rendered video.

 

20/20 is a global standard. It is not designated differently on a per country basis. At least those that are first world. I was just at my driver medical back in September and the optometrist that's actually qualified (unlike you) specifically mentioned that the average population in Canada see below 20/20.

 

I tried watching your example video and can only do so at this point in time at 1080p/1440p. At 4k youtube is throwing errors right now so I will come back to this later.

[Hellion]

On 12/6/2017 at 9:03 AM, dalekphalm said:

We provided evidence. You said it's not discernible.

 

You've made the "criteria" impossible to prove (or disprove, for that matter). You've created an unreasonable level of evidence.

 

1. We know for a fact that there are "technical" differences between 4K downscaled to 1080p vs Native 1080p, on Youtube.

2. Myself, among many many others, have said we can perceive that difference.

3. You claim we're wrong.

 

I think that's about the end of it, isn't it?

 

We're not going to change your mind.

 

For anyone else? Please don't listen to him. Look at the facts yourself, and then see the comparisons. It's easy to notice the difference, if you care about those details.

 

For anyone who doesn't care about the differences? Easy way to save on bandwidth.

At this point in time streaming video isn't in a real world environment. As I've mentioned on several occasions, clearly bit depth is improved in 4k but if the actual video play back quality isn't "significantly improved" (as was specifically stated earlier) then it's a pointless experience. So far the only argument I've seen essentially equates to "4k is amazing quality dood" despite being watched on a monitor that doesn't even support that resolution.

 

Making yourself believe otherwise because of a spec sheet rather then objectively determining this is ignorant. You may be a tech nerd, that's your prerogative but at some point there are diminishing returns that aren't discernable in real world circumstances.

 

So no, this isn't over.

 

I compare this to guys that watch 4k video on a smart phone where based on the screen size there's no noticeable difference. Or guys that have a 144hz monitor but claim they still notice a difference when the game runs at 200+ FPS. You are either brainwashed by marketing to think that way or have been convincing yourself in a desperate attempt to stay on the bleeding edge.

[LunaP0n3]

I cranked the content process limit to 7. Just because I have the RAM for it.

 

[ScratchCat]

On 6 December 2017 at 3:54 PM, iRandomize said:

I've been using Firefox 57 (Quantum) exclusively since launch. On both Windows and macOS. Long story short, on Windows its amazing. I see no perceivable difference between Chrome and Firefox, except for much less ram usage in Firefox. I do not switching back to Chrome or Edge. And on top of that, i really like being on an independent browser.

 

However, on macOS it really sucks. It may be really snappy at times, but sometimes it really bogs down. And i have no idea why. I had to switch back to Chrome which just seems to perform much more consistently. I'm probably the only one on these forums finding myself on a mac at times (and btw, i prefer Windows 10, and spend like 80-90% on Windows!), but if anyone else have any experience with sluggish performance on a mac, please let me know! I would really love to switch to Firefox, and completely leave Chrome behind! Also. I like the look of Firefox 57 better

 

On the entire 1080p vs 4k discussion: I do see a difference between 4k, 1440p and 1080p Youtube content, and i have nowhere near perfect eyesight. Someone should make a poll on this, and when it turns out 99% to 1%, it has to be more than just placebo...

Do you have an HDD in your Mac and an SSD in your Windows machine ?

Firefox has a habit of saving state every 15 seconds per default which could lead to slow downs on slow storage media. Additionally Firefox caches files when being used, this will fill up over time meaning that if you don't use the browser much it could take a long time to create. 

 

In regards to  4K vs 1080p:

Not only is the discussion on a one way trip to Thread locked but the argument is rather picky, it doesn't matter if the other person thinks otherwise. They are not the ones controlling your YouTube settings. 

[iRandomize]

3 hours ago, ScratchCat said:

Do you have an HDD in your Mac and an SSD in your Windows machine ?

Firefox has a habit of saving state every 15 seconds per default which could lead to slow downs on slow storage media. Additionally Firefox caches files when being used, this will fill up over time meaning that if you don't use the browser much it could take a long time to create.

It's the same machine. A 2015 MacBook Pro so the SSD is about as fast as they get. But the story is the same when comparing to my W10 desktop. On macOS, Firefox really doesen't perform as great as on my Windows installs. I think it may have gotten a bit better with the latest patch, but still far from the smooth performance i get on W10.

[vetali]

I've been using FF57 on my main machine for 2 weeks now. Have to say its been a great experience. It doesn't really feel faster, if not slower than chrome in general use. I feel the UI and resource management is superior. The biggest difference I notice is on twitter. If I kept loading recent tweets on chrome it'd eventually bog down and lag badly. I'd then be forced to refresh the page. I've yet to run into this issue on FF57. Not really a huge inconvenience while I was running chrome, but it makes FF feel like a better put together program.