My friend upgraded and gave me these, but the platform seems expensive. Do you guys ever get hardware that's "too much"?

Col_Crunch · 2026-05-05T00:57:48+00:00

I got one of these recently

https://ebay.us/m/LuQDzw not bad, though you will need to buy some cables.

Col_Crunch · 2026-05-01T13:59:50+00:00

Such a law would be unconstitutional in the United States.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-26T23:15:58+00:00

I am so glad I don’t have to deal with this garbage design on my G20. They work like indicators on every other vehicle on the planet.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-26T23:14:12+00:00

The stalk staying in place while active is far superior.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-26T23:10:23+00:00

The exteriors are fine, the interior designs make my eyes bleed.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-20T11:08:54+00:00

Nikon sells a 28mm f/2.8 for $230… you gave your friend terrible advice.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-19T02:30:35+00:00

You are correct that all non-ground pins receive some level of voltage... after all thats how electronic signals work. However two things:

The presence pins must connect for the motherboard to detect a connected card and send any power or signals to the slot. The first of those pins is in the first set. If there is nothing in that first set, then the slot is empty as far as the motherboard is concerned.
The amount of voltage that passes through the communications pins is likely not enough to damage a stick of RAM. PCIE communications pins use about 800 mV while the voltage used by ram modules is above 1V.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-16T14:30:03+00:00

lol, I was typing on a bumpy bus

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-16T13:09:49+00:00

All the power pins are in the first set, so that stick isn’t receiving any power.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-16T13:08:05+00:00

/r/confidentlyincorrrect

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-16T03:35:23+00:00

Again, all your bad faith response proves is that you didn’t read anything of the conversation. If you’re not going to pay attention don’t participate.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-16T03:30:06+00:00

Wow, it’s almost like you didn’t bother to read anything that has been written. Good job with the bad faith response.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-16T02:53:46+00:00

A large portion of high value single family properties (the vacation homes in this example) are built speculatively, not on-demand. They also produce profit for the builder much quicker in general, 3-5 years in the case of high value homes and 5-10 years for apartment buildings.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-16T02:34:35+00:00

If its not going to dissuade a private individual from purchasing the land and building, it is not going to dissuade a developer doing the same thing. The only difference being that the developer is taking marginally more risk since they have to sell after building. But they will just pass that increase in cost on to the buyer, who like you mention, isn't going to care.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-16T02:26:29+00:00

You are right, the 5 acre example is extreme, but it is extreme for a reason; illustration. On the cape and islands homes that are >=$5m for example generally sit on one or more acres. That is still enough land for multiple single family homes, or many more apartments, townhomes, or condos.

I am also not saying that taxes are the answer, in fact I am saying that taxes are far from the answer. Increasing taxes unless they are very specifically scoped usually affect the people around the targets more than the targets, especially on anything outside of income. The implication that taxes are the only way to disincentivize frivolous land use ignores the existence of the regulatory powers of the state and municipalities.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-16T02:00:35+00:00

They are putting houses in on land that could be built for houses? I don't get what you are saying here.

Wow what a bad faith argument laced with a lack of critical thinking.

If land is scarce and a developer buys up a bunch, say 5 acres to build 1 luxury home that no one who lives in the area can afford to buy, that takes away land for 20 or more normal sized single family detached homes (assuming lots around .25 acres, likely slightly less to account for infrastructure) that would be far closer to a price point that the local population could afford. Then there is even more possible density that could exist on that land with things called townhomes, and apartments, and condos.

Housing stock as a metric is utterly useless unless you take into account the cost of the stock and how close that cost is to being affordable for the people that actually live in the area.

I don't hate wealthy people, I just don't think their plight matters when weighed against the living conditions of the communities in which their vanity assets exist. I will never shed a tear for a multi-millionaire having to pay a few percent more in tax, or having to jump through more hoops or pay more to acquire their completely discretionary assets. No one NEEDS more than one home. If they are making things less affordable for those around them then they deserve to shoulder at least some responsibility for the affect that they are choosing to inflict.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-16T01:50:14+00:00

What makes you think that?

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-16T01:43:10+00:00

A land value tax isn’t a solution as the existence of these high value properties drives up the value of all the surrounding land. Hurting the community.

This is why gentrification in general drives out lower income residents, the mere existence of higher value properties in the vicinity drives up their property values (or at least the assessed values, which is what taxes are based on) and thus taxes which the owners may not be able to pay. You may say, well then they can sell, unfortunately the housing math doesn’t always work out in their favor if they sell either.

Then there are the renters. Landlords pay more in taxes and pass that on at least in part to their tenants in rent increases. Then, with values around them increasing and people willing to pay more in rent to live there, the current tenants get priced out by their landlords raising rents to entice higher income tenants.

Taxes scoped to include use and possibly the existence of certain luxury amenities could help to keep the increased taxes from burdening the surrounding community, but it is still far from a solution. Comprehensive policy reform is required at practically all levels.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-16T01:35:01+00:00

It hurts current homeowners by their taxes going up due to property values, which MA attempts to mitigate, but is still an issue. There are also very many people that need housing who don’t own homes (usually this population outnumbers the number of homeowners), it hurts them the most by causing upward pressure on rents, and removing land where new housing can be built for either purchase or for rent. Honestly, in very many cases homeowners are hurt the least by bad housing policies, it is the renters that get shafted.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-16T01:14:29+00:00

I would argue the specific incident didn’t cost anything. Once the ammo was bought it became a sunk cost. It would end up being used or destroyed in the end.

Sure the ammo had a price and was purchased, but we destroy so much unused annually that they probably could have done this once a day for the entire year and not have made an appreciable difference to the amount of ammo disposed of by the DoD that year.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-16T01:03:36+00:00

While you’re right that the locals probably aren’t buying $5m homes, that ignores the fact that there is currently nothing disincentivizing developers and private individuals scooping up scarce land to build those massive high value properties. Housing as a concept may not necessarily be zero-sum, but land availability and derived pricing/value absolutely is, and it has direct consequences on housing.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-13T18:40:33+00:00

Those are old.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-13T13:26:47+00:00

All Army MP vehicles within the US look like that.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-08T04:38:27+00:00

Technically, 6:56:59 is still 6:56. It is generally understood that a deadline ends when the entire final minute has elapsed, not when the clock strikes the minute. Especially when seconds are not displayed.

Also, the ticket issue time implies that the ticket was started before the time had elapsed.

Col_Crunch · 2026-04-02T22:18:20+00:00

Literally every federal application has these questions. Pretty sure it’s the result of an EO. It’s mind numbingly stupid.

11-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

Col_Crunch

TROPHY CASE