Allegro.cc - Online Community
Post Reply

Allegro.cc Forums » Allegro.cc Comments » Thread locks too soon

rss feed Print
Thread locks too soon
Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

video

evil libruls making 9/11 a partisan issue in 2019

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/what-we-learn-from-50-years-of-asking-children-to-draw-scientists/556025/

It's all in their minds. As girls grow up, they believe less and less in their ability to excel in science. This is the real truth of the matter, that girls aren't interested in STEM because they don't believe they can do it.

Stuff it.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

I think that's entirely subjective. What children draw is going to largely be what they've been exposed to. It would be a completely different matter if they just asked children to draw whatever they wanted to, and they drew scientists, sometimes female scientists.

First of all you have to ask yourself how they know what a scientist is. I didn't know what a scientist was when I was young enough to be asked to draw in school. I didn't even know what science was. I first learned that "science" was a thing in grade 7 when we started having science classes.

Odds are these children were "taught" what scientists are just before they were asked to draw it, or perhaps they watched a cartoon featuring scientists with whatever agenda the producers of the show had. Which could easily skew the results if the teachers or media featured female scientists. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, though I think it could be harmful for society if they start branding STEM fields as feminine, which might actually discourage boys from pursuing them, and have a net effect of just less STEM people overall. I think it makes sense for media to portray life as closely as possible. I think it makes sense to portray scientists proportional to how they really are, unless there's absolute proof that discrimination is keeping women out of STEM (which there's no real evidence for).

Similarly, as the article seems to allude to, children are disproportionately exposed to women in media because women are far more likely to work with children (I don't see the Feminists up in arms about the lack of men in childcare centres and schools, or children's media, mind you).

I'm familiar with "Sid the Science Kid" because my nephew used to watch it. Basically just a derpy kid that was fascinated with science-y stuff. It's a good show.

That said, Wikipedia also references SciGirls which was made from 2010 to 2018 and specifically targets girls to try to interest them in STEM. That's not at all the same thing as girls naturally being interested in STEM. That's literally brainwashing them to think that they're meant to do it. It's no surprise when you feed a young mind with ideas that they regurgitate them later. The dangerous thing is that we're not gods, and we often don't know the consequences for these things until it's much too late. Is the net effect positive, or is it actually doing harm? They won't know for 50 years.

If anything, the fact that young children predominantly draw male scientists shows that there may well be a natural link to boys being interested in STEM and girls not. You would otherwise expect for young girls to draw predominantly female scientists, but obviously if 2/3 of the pictures are still male then at least 1/6 of girls are drawing male scientists and don't see themselves being interested in that.

What's far, far, far more interesting than what young children draw is what high school girls are interested in. Particularly, the ones that have grown up in a world that encouraged them to be interested in STEM. What they continue to find is that for the most part all of their efforts to get more girls into STEM have little effect.

The less girly the STEM field is apparently the less women are interested in it. Whereas biology and medical science attract a fair number of women, engineering and technology still don't attract as many. Which doesn't come as much of a surprise. We already know that women are more likely to work with people than machines.

We can even see hints of this from toddlers that have had limited exposure to stereotypes. The boys naturally are drawn to the boy toys. The girls are naturally drawn to the girl toys. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions.

Actual science basically confirms that men and women are different in several ways. And that includes the things that they like, and the things they want to do and have in life. It's the politicians that are trying to convince the science that men and women are the same, and they continue to fail.

The more free a society is to choose the larger the disparity becomes. How do you explain that if women actually want to be in STEM? It makes no sense. It's a complete contradiction.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

bamccaig said:

I think that's entirely subjective. What children draw is going to largely be what they've been exposed to. It would be a completely different matter if they just asked children to draw whatever they wanted to, and they drew scientists, sometimes female scientists.

First of all you have to ask yourself how they know what a scientist is. I didn't know what a scientist was when I was young enough to be asked to draw in school. I didn't even know what science was. I first learned that "science" was a thing in grade 7 when we started having science classes.

Odds are these children were "taught" what scientists are just before they were asked to draw it, or perhaps they watched a cartoon featuring scientists with whatever agenda the producers of the show had. Which could easily skew the results if the teachers or media featured female scientists. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, though I think it could be harmful for society if they start branding STEM fields as feminine, which might actually discourage boys from pursuing them, and have a net effect of just less STEM people overall. I think it makes sense for media to portray life as closely as possible. I think it makes sense to portray scientists proportional to how they really are, unless there's absolute proof that discrimination is keeping women out of STEM (which there's no real evidence for).

Similarly, as the article seems to allude to, children are disproportionately exposed to women in media because women are far more likely to work with children (I don't see the Feminists up in arms about the lack of men in childcare centres and schools, or children's media, mind you).

bamccaig, you totally missed the point of the study. The study asked children to draw scientists (yes children know what scientists are :/) because they wanted to know what the child's definition of a scientist was, whether they were male or female and whether or not they identified with it.

bamccaig said:

Wikipedia [also] references SciGirls which was made from 2010 to 2018 and specifically targets girls to try to interest them in STEM. That's not at all the same thing as girls naturally being interested in STEM. That's literally brainwashing them to think that they're meant to do it. It's no surprise when you feed a young mind with ideas that they regurgitate them later. The dangerous thing is that we're not gods, and we often don't know the consequences for these things until it's much too late. Is the net effect positive, or is it actually doing harm? They won't know for 50 years.

Ha. We tell boys they can be scientists. Why not tell girls the same thing? Guess what, the study was 50 years long, so we DO know the consequences of these things. As the times changed, girls idea of who they could be changed as well. Girls are no different than boys. They believe what we tell them. That's why it's so crucial that we tell them they can be whatever they want to be, including a scientist.

As the ideas of what roles a girl is capable of changed, so did the professions they chose :

Since the 1960s, female representation in science has substantially increased. In the United States, at least, more women are earning science degrees, including 48 percent of chemistry degrees in 2015 compared to just 19 percent in 1966.

This shows women are just as capable of men. These are young adults we're talking about, who have all had a chance to shape their own ideas, and half of all chemistry degrees are now going to women in the US.

I wouldn't expect you to understand this, but belief is paramount.

The person who believes they can and the person who believes they can't are both right. (Source - Henry Ford quotes)

bamccaig said:

If anything, the fact that young children predominantly draw male scientists shows that there may well be a natural link to boys being interested in STEM and girls not. You would otherwise expect for young girls to draw predominantly female scientists, but obviously if 2/3 of the pictures are still male then at least 1/6 of girls are drawing male scientists and don't see themselves being interested in that.

Correlation is not causation. Don't try to slip that one past me. :/

The fact that the percentage of scientists drawn that were female increased to 28% over the course of the study compared to 0.6% at the start of the study shows that kids believe what we tell them, and that their beliefs shape their choices. Again, it's a matter of self esteem and guess what, faith.

“And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.”

bamccaig said:

What's far, far, far more interesting than what young children draw is what high school girls are interested in. Particularly, the ones that have grown up in a world that encouraged them to be interested in STEM. What they continue to find is that for the most part all of their efforts to get more girls into STEM have little effect.

You're positing something that was proven false by the study. The percentage of women earning chemistry (science) degrees went from 1/5 to 1/2 over the course of 50 years. If the trend continues, women will begin to dominate the field. And that scares the shit out of you, because pretty soon you're going to be obsolete.

bamccaig said:

The less girly the STEM field is apparently the less women are interested in it. Whereas biology and medical science attract a fair number of women, engineering and technology still don't attract as many. Which doesn't come as much of a surprise. We already know that women are more likely to work with people than machines.

Which makes sense. But it doesn't prove your point. Humans naturally group together. Where like minded people with similarities go, they naturally cluster.

bamccaig said:

We can even see hints of this from toddlers that have had limited exposure to stereotypes. The boys naturally are drawn to the boy toys. The girls are naturally drawn to the girl toys. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions.

What, you mean guns and dolls? Those are stereotypes built in by society. From birth to grave, people are conditioned to be what society tells them to be. So when we take the time to tell boys AND girls that they can BOTH be whatever they choose to be, then we shall truly see what is more 'natural'. Society's conditioning is so strong that in some examples of native Indian tribes, men took the roles of women.

Just google 'examples of reversed gender roles throughout history'. Here, Let Me Google that for you.

4th result : https://www.cracked.com/article_19780_5-gender-stereotypes-that-used-to-be-exact-opposite.html

bamccaig said:

Actual science basically confirms that men and women are different in several ways. And that includes the things that they like, and the things they want to do and have in life. It's the politicians that are trying to convince the science that men and women are the same, and they continue to fail.

It's not politicians trying to convince us women and men are the same. We both know that's not true, and so does anybody else with a brain. Note, I'm not agreeing with you. The difference is that men and women are similar in the way that they can both be whatever they believe they can be. In 2015, fully half of all chemistry degrees went to women. If females represent half the population, and they represent half of all chemistry degrees, then there is an EQUAL amount of interest among men and women in a SCIENCE related field.

Now you note correctly that the engineering field is underrepresented by women. What we need to discover is WHY. I would posit that it is another case of conditioning, and that a breakthrough could easily be made by women in this field as well if we encouraged them.

bamccaig said:

The more free a society is to choose the larger the disparity becomes. How do you explain that if women actually want to be in STEM? It makes no sense. It's a complete contradiction.

Again, this is not factually correct. The gap has been closing over the years, not widening. We have more freedom today than ever before. And if we use that freedom to encourage people, then nothing can stop us from becoming whatever we want to be. Women want financial security just as much as men do, and in the modern world, women are less reliant on men than ever before, because they realize they are capable of being self sufficient on their own.

Your giant wall of diatribe just reads like a newspaper editorial from the 1800's. You have been so conditioned into semi-modern gender roles that you feel uncomfortable if someone challenges them. You know who you are, a MAN. And you let society tell you what a man is and isn't supposed to be. You are the victim of your own conditioning. Be free. And allow women to be free to be whatever they believe they can be.

Gender roles change over time, as easily shown by the link above. This means they are largely ARBITRARY, and as such, we are free to define them for ourselves, and to redefine them as we see fit. There is no perfect mold for men or women.

This isn't about feminism. It's about HUMANISM.

Try to reverse roles with your wife for a day. Do the laundry and the dishes and the cleaning and the cooking and let her drink beer and smoke pot until her brain sizzles like yours. ;) I bet you couldn't do it, and you would quickly resent your 'predefined' role as a woman and caretaker. Try thanking her for all she does for once, and show a little appreciation and respect for the opposite sex. ;)

;D

Rodolfo Lam
Member #16,045
August 2015

Hey bamccaig, what you are looking for is a double hop VPN connection. A google search is your friend, people have already thought about that scenario!

You will be hosting your own DNS server that blocks the ads as you currently are, additionally, configure the same RPi to act as an OpenVPN server tied to your DNS. To connect to the outside, you will then install the VPN client of your provider of choice. This will now be your network’s endpoint towards the internet.

All your devices will connect to your own hosted OpenVPN service that filters ads, but is encrypted from your ISPs eyes. At least until your external VPN provider’s endpoint, which will have their ISP spying everything if they wish (;D)

I have everything setup except for the double hop, as I really don’t mind my ISP. The main reason i have the VPN is to use public WiFi without worries. Also, I can use mobile data and still have phone-wide ad blocking with no additional software apart from the OpenVPN client.

Do keep in mind that by having a VPN to your home network, there is the possibility of having your entire network exposed to 0Days and whatnot. So be sure to know (or at least pretend to know) what you are doing.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

The study asked children to draw scientists (yes children know what scientists are :/) because they wanted to know what the child's definition of a scientist was, whether they were male or female and whether or not they identified with it.

I understand that... It's flawed. Children are not lab rats. The variables are not controlled for. The findings are meaningless, and forming conclusions from the results is foolhardy.

Ha. We tell boys they can be scientists. Why not tell girls the same thing?

There's nothing wrong with telling girls they can be scientists. They can. What's wrong is telling girls they should be scientists. They should only be scientists if that's what they want to do. And in societies where women are most free to choose they choose not to be. Funny, eh?

As the ideas of what roles a girl is capable of changed, so did the professions they chose :

Since the 1960s, female representation in science has substantially increased. In the United States, at least, more women are earning science degrees, including 48 percent of chemistry degrees in 2015 compared to just 19 percent in 1966.

This shows women are just as capable of men. These are young adults we're talking about, who have all had a chance to shape their own ideas, and half of all chemistry degrees are now going to women in the US.

No, what this shows is that the proportion of women graduating with chemistry degrees has increased, but THAT'S ALL IT TELLS YOU. Like you said, correlation does not imply causation. For all we know the number of women graduating hasn't really changed much, and instead far fewer men are graduating.

We already know that women now earn the majority of degrees. Schools are no longer taking care of boys, and are instead chasing them away. Boys and young men are giving up on schools in huge numbers. That's not a win for women. It's a horrible loss for all of us.

The fact that the percentage of scientists drawn that were female increased to 28% over the course of the study compared to 0.6% at the start of the study shows that kids believe what we tell them, and that their beliefs shape their choices.

They didn't ask children to draw what they believe. They asked them to draw a scientist, and beyond that we don't know what they told them. For all we know, teachers first drew their own female scientist on the chalkboard as an example, or maybe they stood over the little girl's shoulders directing them.

It's only a fun exercise from the children's perspective, and you really should not be forming such strong opinions on the results. Without controlling for variables it's impossible to reason why the proportion of scientists drawn as female increased over time. You'd have to ask the children why they drew the scientist as female to know the answer, but you also have to be careful with that because asking them could make them question it themselves. Psychology is very complicated, and we do not have a very good understanding of it. It's mostly guesswork still at our level of advancement... It doesn't necessarily mean that girls believe they can or want to enter science. It could just be they were encouraged to draw girls by their teachers, or that they watch a TV show or some other media that has a female scientist in it precisely because social scientists think girls need to see that, and more of the girls modelled their drawings on images they had seen before... Who knows. We don't have enough information to reason about it.

You're positing something that was proven false by the study. The percentage of women earning chemistry (science) degrees went from 1/5 to 1/2 over the course of 50 years. If the trend continues, women will begin to dominate the field. And that scares the shit out of you, because pretty soon you're going to be obsolete.

I'm not a chemist. It doesn't really affect me directly. It does indirectly affect me if fewer men are graduating with chemistry degrees. It's probably fair to say that the vast majority of chemistry-related discoveries in human history were discovered by men. There are still plenty of women that have made discoveries or important contributions, but that's beside the point. If men are not graduating anymore it could mean both a shortage of chemists in general going forward, and potentially a less effective workforce of chemists, which could mean a net decrease in productivity in chemistry. And all other fields that are being artificially tampered with by these initiatives.

What's more, it's alarming that you would imply that men are becoming obsolete as if it's a good thing, or even a benign thing. That's a horrible thing. Nearly half the Earth's population is male. Most families in the world depend on men to provide for them. Fewer opportunities for men will hurt everyone, including women and girls.

What's also worth mentioning is that while they tamper with some areas of our society, they are not balancing the effects. If you ask Feminists if women should pay half of the bill most of them will say no. They'll say men should pay for them. That they deserve it. And that men that would even suggest a 50:50 split are deadbeats.

What you find if you study genders and jobs in the world is that women do not date men that make less money than they do. And society continues to encourage this. When a woman is making $300,000 a year her husband is making even more.

We cannot fully understand all of the consequences of this long term. I'd wager that this is going to cause a decrease in productivity of the planet over time. It could also potentially put Western nations at a disadvantage compared to the more conservative East, which could significantly impact the overall balance of power in the world. The USA is already on a downturn. Imagine a world where the USA is no longer a superpower, and Russia and China are in control of everyone.

Changes like this are far reaching. They can have unforeseen consequences in the long term. I think you're crazy if you think politicians or social scientists really understand this well enough to be tampering with it in such a big way. It's far more likely that it's all about short term power grabs, and it hasn't even been considered what unforeseen consequences could arise, let alone planned and accounted for. Do you honestly believe that the government is that well run?

What, you mean guns and dolls? Those are stereotypes built in by society. From birth to grave, people are conditioned to be what society tells them to be. So when we take the time to tell boys AND girls that they can BOTH be whatever they choose to be, then we shall truly see what is more 'natural'.

They have been studying this in babies that are too young to have been influenced by stereotypes. A few months old. They aren't able to understand language yet. And also they've been studying this in the societies that are the freest, like in Scandinavia. Even though their society as a whole is extremely liberal, they still see these differences naturally occurring. It isn't from stereotypes. It's from nature.

Society's conditioning is so strong that in some examples of native Indian tribes, men took the roles of women.

You're cherry-picking. It's not that men used to sit in the tepees with the babies, while the women went out and hunted buffalo. Rather, elderly women were considered wise and knowledgeable and were trusted with powers to oversee the tribe, but the women still did womanly things and the men still did manly things.

Of course, I wonder how many men lived long enough to be old and wise given their job descriptions of hunting dangerous animals with bows and sticks and warring with neighbouring tribes... I suspect that when these social structures are examined there's a fairly logical basis for this structuring, and it has nothing to do with reverse gender roles.

So your basing your argument on a Cracked article? Apparently written by a guy that the Interwebs claims to be abusive to women, though it's unclear if it's just a difference of opinion between a man and an army of SJWs or if he was beating up his girlfriend for making tuna casserole again. :-/

That article doesn't even talk about gender roles. It talks about superficial stereotypes, like colour preference, and whether or not it's OK for men to cry... It's not talking about swapping roles. There are reasons why these changes occurred in society, and it is not in any way supportive of your arguments. Men have always cried. Women have always cried a WHOLE lot more. The fact that our current society shames men for crying is one out of a million examples of the sexism that men are conditioned to live with silently. Of course, that doesn't upset you. You don't even recognize it when it's right in front of your face. You're too busy white-knighting for women that don't need your help.

Now you note correctly that the engineering field is underrepresented by women. What we need to discover is WHY. I would posit that it is another case of conditioning, and that a breakthrough could easily be made by women in this field as well if we encouraged them.

I don't know what conditioning you think there is. From the time I was in the lower primary school grades I was being told that girls can do everything that boys can. I'm 33 this year. The adult population has already grown up in a world that told girls they can be whatever they want, and even discriminated in their favour for education and job opportunities.

The evidence points to women making different choices because they just have different interests than men. That doesn't fit the agenda though so it isn't even considered and instead it's asserted that somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, these girls were still discouraged from doing what they want and we need to give them even more special treatment... ::)

Your giant wall of diatribe just reads like a newspaper editorial from the 1800's. You have been so conditioned into semi-modern gender roles that you feel uncomfortable if someone challenges them. You know who you are, a MAN. And you let society tell you what a man is and isn't supposed to be. You are the victim of your own conditioning. Be free. And allow women to be free to be whatever they believe they can be.

On the contrary, society has been telling me since I was a small child that girls are the same as boys in every way. I disagree based on my own observations and understanding of the world around me. I challenge the agenda that has been taught to me as fact because it doesn't fit with the evidence. Strange thing that... Forming my own ideas about the world, and doing what I want instead of what society tells me I must do. Crazy.

Gender roles change over time, as easily shown by the link above. This means they are largely ARBITRARY, and as such, we are free to define them for ourselves, and to redefine them as we see fit. There is no perfect mold for men or women.

Gender roles really haven't changed much. You haven't provided any links that demonstrate that. If you can find a society where the proportion of men and women is approximately equal where women do the dangerous, dirty, hard work, and men do the cushy, gentle, menial jobs then I'll consider your point. So far you haven't provided this, and I saw no such evidence of this from your suggested Google search. If you found it then please link directly to it to save me time. I'm not here to do your own research for you.

This isn't about feminism. It's about HUMANISM.

I am 100% in support of true equality. Which means no special treatment for women. It means equal opportunities, and choosing the best person for the job based on merit. Individual women should be given the opportunity to do anything they're good at, but if a man is also applying that is a better fit the job should go to the man.

Not all women should be scientists, but some of them should. Also, not all men should be scientists. Each individual has strengths and weaknesses that make them better suited to certain jobs. Similarly, men should also be given the opportunity to do anything they're good at, even if it happens to be childcare or wedding planning.

We don't need to achieve a 50:50 split in everything. That's unrealistic, and undesirable. People should be free to do whatever they want. And if that means that most women don't want to do STEM jobs that's perfectly fine. You shouldn't be encouraging them to do STEM jobs if they don't want to.

We know there are strengths and weaknesses inherent to sex. Some jobs are better suited to certain sexes. There are exceptions, but that doesn't mean that everybody is qualified to do everything. On average, men and women are equally intelligent, but men are more common at either extreme (extremely brilliant or extremely stupid). Jobs that require the most intelligent people should go to the most intelligent people, who on average are men. Jobs that require lots of heavy lifting should be performed by people that are fit to do them. On average, that will be men. There may still be the odd woman that is a good fit for those jobs, and they should be encouraged to do them if they want.

Third wave Feminism is very much misandrist, and therein lies the problem. It isn't egalitarians that are influencing policies, but Feminists that want special privileges for women and special responsibilities and burdens for men. I'm opposed to Feminism because it's factually wrong. I still support equality for women, but I support equality of opportunity, not outcome. I don't believe in it for political reasons, but I believe in it because I believe in fairness. My stance is based on evidence, not doctrine.

Try to reverse roles with your wife for a day. Do the laundry and the dishes and the cleaning and the cooking and let her drink beer and smoke pot until her brain sizzles like yours. ;) I bet you couldn't do it, and you would quickly resent your 'predefined' role as a woman and caretaker. Try thanking her for all she does for once, and show a little appreciation and respect for the opposite sex. ;)

I do 95% of the cooking, 50% of the laundry, and ~40% of the dishes and other cleaning. I'm not sitting on my ass drinking while she's slaving away in the kitchen. Quite the opposite is true. I also pay 95% of our shared bills. She mostly only pays her own bills, but will occasionally contribute to the odd meal. Her savings account is a whole lot healthier than mine, despite me making about twice as much money. I'd love to reverse roles. Good luck convincing her of that though.

Hey bamccaig, what you are looking for is a double hop VPN connection. A google search is your friend, people have already thought about that scenario!

You will be hosting your own DNS server that blocks the ads as you currently are, additionally, configure the same RPi to act as an OpenVPN server tied to your DNS. To connect to the outside, you will then install the VPN client of your provider of choice. This will now be your network’s endpoint towards the internet.

All your devices will connect to your own hosted OpenVPN service that filters ads, but is encrypted from your ISPs eyes. At least until your external VPN provider’s endpoint, which will have their ISP spying everything if they wish (;D)

I think that I will need to install my VPN software on the Raspberry Pi itself to encrypt the DNS lookups. My VPN provides its own DNS service, and it by default blocks DNS requests to other services to ensure that they don't leak. In theory, if the Pi is running the VPN software then I should be able to configure pi-hole to use the VPN's DNS servers, and then it should still be secure... And then I'll need to disable that safety mechanism on my PCs and mobile devices for them to use the LAN DNS server instead... It just makes me uneasy because if the VPN software fails on the Pi then it could potentially leak still, and I would be oblivious to it. I think that to be 100% secure the VPN software needs to be built specifically to account for a local DNS blocker like this, and they need to build mechanisms to ensure that the local DNS blocker is also secured...

Do keep in mind that by having a VPN to your home network, there is the possibility of having your entire network exposed to 0Days and whatnot. So be sure to know (or at least pretend to know) what you are doing.

This I don't understand. There is not a VPN in the sense that a remote machine can access my network. The VPN exists on the Internet at my service provider's network, and my traffic tunnels through encrypted connections to those endpoints. I don't see how that could expose me to "0Days" (I assume you mean 0-day vulnerabilities in software?) and "whatnot". Please elaborate.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Bump??? I thought I would remain silent so you could hear yourself talk. ;) xD :D

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

I just got a new monitor.

It's a Asus ROG Strix XG32VQ. 32" 2560x1440 144Hz 4ms. It's a bit too big for my desk so I'm so close to it it's almost overwhelming, but I'm getting used to it. It's a nice addition to the new PC I got a couple of months ago. I had been using a 27" TV while I was saving up for a new monitor.

{"name":"612064","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/a\/ba6617aed205c62897a2dd146cbdf823.jpg","w":4160,"h":3120,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/a\/ba6617aed205c62897a2dd146cbdf823"}612064

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

bamccaig said:

Is ... is that a $600 monitor?

I paid $930 for it here in NZ, which works out about $800 CAD.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

LennyLen said:

but I'm getting used to it.

I've got a 55" 4K on my desktop. It actually, too big. The 50" model would have been better.

There are new problems with such a high dpi + high screen area. You actually have to turn your head or eyes to see the peripherals of the screen. But for games it's beautiful. I have to turn the FOV to 90 degrees or it looks like tunnel vision. It's very immersive and unlike a VR headset, I can actually share it with other people in the room.

When working with multiple RDP sessions though, it's amazing. I can have 4 1080p windows open at once. So I can be logged into three servers (SQL, web front-end, and domain controller), still have 1080p reserved for my home machine's Visual Studio (or, discord, outlook, etc).

Old picture, old messy house:

{"name":"1evgpt6.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/c\/fcd3eeaf06a966e702b7da7e4194c18c.jpg","w":5312,"h":2988,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/c\/fcd3eeaf06a966e702b7da7e4194c18c"}1evgpt6.jpg

And anyone who says you can't see 4K (or higher than 4K) is plain wrong. The human eye is not a digital camera. It doesn't see in terms of pixels at all. (For example, Wiki Airy disk)

I'm honestly happy the industry is moving to 8K. Why arbitrarily stop improving graphics now when we've got all this momentum going. Ten years ago people would easily say "why would anyone need 8 TB hard drives for $150" and I've got three of them now. People will find a use for any surplus resources. Kind of like the old adage: "What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away."

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

People will find a use for any surplus resources. Kind of like the old adage: "What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away."

I had to use my laptop on the weekend. It's been about 6 months since I've used the Linux system and about 2 months since I used the Windows system (dual-boot). I booted into both systems and installed updates. Linux package management installed all updates in one go, download, install, ready, system usable again. No fan could be heard, it was a rather quick process. With Windows, it did about 5 rounds of rebooting and installing updates, it took forever, with the fan constantly spinning. After installing, some of my "No, thanks, just don't spy on me, please"-settings were, of course, silently reset.

I actually do not use Windows that much, but each time, I'm appalled at how crappy it is. Why are there basically two UIs for system settings starting with Windows 10? (I skipped Windows 8 completely.) This must be an accident, because no one in his right mind would do something like this on purpose, right? Why am I constantly harassed with apps and widgets and even ads that I did not install and that take up my screen space? Why do I have to resort to tweaking tools to get rid of some of the worse annoyances like Cortana? Am I the only one who just wants to work with this thing, preferably without distractions? I won't even mention the privacy settings. I mean I've even paid for this piece of utter bullshit. I'm admittedly ignorant of the Windows world, but I just cannot see any significant improvement since Windows 7 whatsoever, except, maybe, for WSL, but, thanks, I'd rather use the original.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

The user interface in Windows 10 is a huge downgrade to Windows 7.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

This is a typical modus operandi of Windoze and the old Billdozer. Microsoft implements something new, leaves complete compatibility with the old system, and then silently phases out the old system with each new generation.

My Win10 lock screen is basically just an adboard for Microsoft's Photo Gallery and ad links. It's BS. I want my own damn lock screen, thanks.

You have to jump through a bunch of new controls to get to the old controls, which is what you really wanted in the first place, which again, is BS.

I love how Ubuntu just gets the fuck out of the way. Except how the damn auto updater locks the system updates for like 20 minutes every time I boot. Stupid junk $#!^ just let me install my own packages. 371 MB? WTF? Who is writing all this software, and why is it so big?

EDIT
GRRRRAAAAAAARRRRRRRR!

video

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002

I just got done building a new computer this month, and I installed Windows 10 on it (I was using 7) and I have to say, it's not too bad. Runs fast and smooth.

I watched several online videos on it before I installed, so I disabled a pile of garbage for security and speed, so that helped.

What really surprised me is that most of my software all worked without problems. The ONLY program I had that no longer works with Windows 10, is ironically, a Microsoft program which came with my webcamera. I guess they have changed how they operate with cameras now, but the built in Windows 10 "Camera" app works fine.

I actually had more programs that stopped working when I upgraded from Windows XP to Windows 7 to be honest, but that was also going from 32bit to 64bit.

I still want to buy a new monitor, I'll stick with a normal, inexpensive one for under $200. I mainly want one because 100% of my old system is going to my wife.

It's quite the upgrade though! The last motherboard and CPU I bought was 10 years ago. An old triple core AMD CPU. I had upgraded the RAM and video since then, but my video card was a GTX650.

My new system is an MSI B450 Gaming plus, the newer BIOS, or rather, UEFI on them blew me away, compared to the older keyboard/text only BIOS from a decade ago! My CPU is an AMD Ryzen 5 - 2600, which has 6 cores/ 12 threads. My video card is an EVGA GTX1050TI. I grabbed 16G of RAM (8x2 Corsair).

I have a small 240G SSD drive for the OS, and a 4TB Seagate HDD for everything else. It takes 30 seconds to boot up from power on to desktop, which is better than the roughly 5 mins my old system took! :)

All in all, I am very pleased and the cost was fairly inexpensive, roughly $1000CAD for the entire thing.

--
Deluxe Pacman 1 & 2 (free) with source code available
https://nitehackr.github.io/games_index.html

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Wait, it takes 30 seconds to boot from a SSD?! That doesn't sound right at all. It should probably be more like 5 or 10 seconds max.

The thing is I think 7.x, 8.x, and 10.x are basically Windows Vista, fixed, with new desktop elements and other minor things changed.

Vista: 6.0
7: 6.1
8: 6.2
8.1: 6.3
10: 6.4

So the real upgrade was Vista, which everybody knows broke everything. :P Then they ironed out the bugs over time, and started re-releasing the same OS with minor changes as full new upgrades so people rebought the same damn thing over and over again. Classic M$. :)

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

I got a really nice programming job in Charlotte, NC (one of the biggest cities in the southern United States). Still don't have my Bachelor's, but I'll just finish my education online.

The pay is great even factoring cost of living. I start Monday. I moved into my apartment yesterday. It's a nice apartment.

It's funny, I've been wanting out of my old town for so long. I didn't expect it'd happen so soon. I was planning on moving to Raleigh or Atlanta after I got my AAS to finish my education at Georgia Tech or NC State. But this is much better.

I finally did it. 8-)

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Awesome Aaron, way to go! :)

I have a BS in CS and I still have trouble finding a decent job...

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

That's great news, Aaron. I wish you well in your new position. You have worked hard. You deserve it.

RmBeer2
Member #16,660
April 2017
avatar

They have a tremendous building and they are all here huddled in a corner of the room, surrounded by a heavy snow storm and a hungry monster lost in the corridors.
Someone has to leave, right? ::)

╔═══════════════════════════════╗
╫ 🌟 Web of BlackRook 🌟 Patreon 🌟 YouTube 🌟 ╫
╚═══════════════════════════════╝

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Best of luck, Aaron. Welcome to the grind for the next 40 years of your life.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

If find it amusing that RmBeer2 is exploring a C golf game for generating a dynamically sized text box to display text in one thread, all while his signature wrapped in a box is misaligned. :P

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Thank you everyone.

Chris, there won't a be grind. After my therapy / medication management essentially eliminated my symptoms, I went from working a retail job to something making 10x as much in less than 2 years. At this rate I'll be a millionaire in a couple more years and thus will retire early. 8-)

(That's a joke if it isn't abundantly clear.)

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.

RmBeer2
Member #16,660
April 2017
avatar

bambams, by 1 pxl, :'(

(this thread cause a buffer overflow in my memory)

EDIT:

Forget my image:

{"name":"GO2.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/9\/c96ba8c550d45edd251724e71724ef24.png","w":410,"h":81,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/9\/c96ba8c550d45edd251724e71724ef24"}GO2.png

╔═══════════════════════════════╗
╫ 🌟 Web of BlackRook 🌟 Patreon 🌟 YouTube 🌟 ╫
╚═══════════════════════════════╝

MiquelFire
Member #3,110
January 2003
avatar

Oh, custom CSS broke your sig for me. I have forgotten that I added that to my CSS because I used it for so long...

{"name":"612082","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/a\/8a474649640373e674c69729e7ef6cd9.png","w":616,"h":44,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/a\/8a474649640373e674c69729e7ef6cd9"}612082

---
Febreze (and other air fresheners actually) is just below perfumes/colognes, and that's just below dead skunks in terms of smells that offend my nose.
MiquelFire.red | +Me
Windows 8 is a toned, stylish, polished professional athlete. But it’s wearing clown makeup, and that creates a serious image problem. ~PCWorld Article

Post Reply


Go to: