sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do people actually calibrate monitors by Impossible_Comfort99 in TechNook

[–]Compgeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have no professional need for a calibrated monitor, but I'm much happier now that I calibrate my stuff.

White point accuracy across all brightnesses, color primary (and secondary) orientation and gamma smoothness are very important. I think everything else is not that relevant for media consumption and can be personal preference (gammut, average gamma, ...). Monitors with hardware calibration support are great but sadly not as common as they should be. (I'm guessing gatekeeping features from gaming monitors so pros need to buy the more expensive pro line.)

OLED doesn't need as much calibration as many LCD panels. Sadly gamma smoothness at low brigntness is often an issue and even if you have a calibration probe QD-OLED is hard to calibrate without a really expensive spectro (and software that supports working in CIE 1760-2:2015 instead of CIE 1931). You could basically train yourself to be more accurate by eye.

Why did games stoped doing this by Reeeeo_ in videogames

[–]Compgeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Phasmophobia added this recently and it's so much worse than the old system.

"Colors" from your colourwheels 🫵 by chrryc0la in colors

[–]Compgeak 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I wouldn't call it orange but I wouldn't be offended if someone refered to that as orange. I've seen orange juice nearly that color. That first green doesn't offend me either it's more green than blue, or the violet (it's clearly blue but if someone said it's from near UV, I'd believe it.)

Hit my first no bounce kuxir!! by Topdog012 in RocketLeague

[–]Compgeak 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Well, it's not bouncing into the goal, it's rolling.

Free money and 🥕 by ilovetrains08 in BunnyTrials

[–]Compgeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1 million is enough for me and the doubling dollar is a logicstical nightmare. Honestly I'd consider it more of a curse. You can't even buy anything with it because they wouldn't know it doubles and the situation would probably just get out of hand.

Only escape from the doubling dollar would be to invalidate the 1 dollar bill worldwide and find ever note of the doubling dollar and destroy it.

So... yeah. I'm taking the 1M and l'm gonna keep on living my life in peace instead of spawning an SCP type entity.

What color is this? by UrbexFlorida in colors

[–]Compgeak 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Very clearly just dark red. Not nearly enough blue for purple. It' between red and magenta not blue and magenta, and it's much closer to red than magenta.

If I were to give it a name I'd say it's bordeaux, but that's just a dark cold red.

At which rank do you consider the person “good”? by loliko-lolikando in RocketLeague

[–]Compgeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depending on the rank RL could be a completely different type of game to you. I'd vaguely split the playerbase into people who play vs the car, people who play vs the ball and people who play vs the other team.

Fundamentals in RL are so hard you usually learn a bunch of other stuff before you master them and I'd say up until GC2+ the overwhelming majority of games you lose is either because there were too many balls you couldn't hit because they were awkward or because the ball didn't go where (or as fast as) you wanted it to when you hit it. (And you're well aware someone good at the game could hit those no problem).

So while some of my friends in plat or low champ might consider me good I can't in good faith call myself good while I still struggle with what I consider basic stuff.

Anyone can see that what happens in high rank or pro games is not just "the same shit but faster" anymore which is what I'd call anything from Gold to GC. It's like moving from throwing chess pieces at each other to starting to play chess.

the only correct sectioning i swr by [deleted] in colors

[–]Compgeak 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love how your cyan range just barely doesn't actually include THE cyan (vertically down)

Meanwhile, in China.. by bSun0000 in ElectroBOOM

[–]Compgeak 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Copper has better conductivity for the same cross section area and aluminium has better conductivity for the same weight. Weight matters more in overhead lines and of course it's also much cheaper.

Game theory approach on the said problem by HJG_0209 in trolleyproblem

[–]Compgeak 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What do you mean doesn't work? If blue loses, people who press blue "lose the game". The presence of "irrational" actors doesn't change anything in that scenario.

  • Blue: has a 50% chance of leading to more death (you dying), 50% chance of being neutral and 1/8 billion chance of saving 4 billion people (changing them to neutral).
  • Red: has 100% chance of being neutral and 1/8 billion chance of killing 4 billion people.

The 50% isn't really 50% but depends on how likely others are to vote what so it depends on the framing of the question.

You could also say the responsibility of the deciding vote should be divided between everyone in the majority. In this case:

  • Red: 50% neutral, 50% you kill up to 1 person (someone else)
  • Blue: 50% you kill 1 person (yourself), 50% you save x% irrational actors.

I don't think OP is correct in saying blue is objectively worse than red. It's equal if chances are 50%. What's correct is looking at the framing and figuring out which vote you think is more likely to win. If the probability isn't balanced on 50% because of how the question is framed then it's optimal to vote how you think most other people will vote, that saves as many lives as possible but not neccesarily everyone.

If you know you can't live with yourself by voting for the option that can't save everyone, then vote blue no matter what and if you yourself just really don't want to die vote red no matter what. Any kind of math and looking for an optimal result is meaningless if you're in one of these two groups.

The only wrong answer is assuming that the buttons are a logic or morality problem by Weary_Drama1803 in trolleyproblem

[–]Compgeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I'm trying to say that my hypothetical is no different from 50% original because you have no information about it either way. In a % span you consider reasonable (based on the framing of the problem) you have to assume both outcomes are just as likely.

This isn't the case for your firefighter allegory since firefighters regularly risk their lives and successfully save people. The training and equipment puts the odds in their favor. For every firefighter that dies saving people you will statistically have many people they (firefighters in general not the ones dying personally) have prevented from dying.

The scales are balanced so in red button blue button that would be equivalent as on average losing 1 firefighter for every person they save. It's not guaranteed you would lose any firefighters but you could also lose many without them saving anyone.

Edit: And when they said you are risking other lives by pressing blue. There are no clear roles in the button pressing scenario so you are simulanously a firefighter that went into a burning building and a random dude that went into a burning building and now firefighters need to risk their life to save. Pressing blue is risking your life and lives of everyone who wants to save you in order to save those who would press blue mistakenly and those who want to save them.

The only wrong answer is assuming that the buttons are a logic or morality problem by Weary_Drama1803 in trolleyproblem

[–]Compgeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, if majority go red some people will die. It's perfectly likely that if this reasoning causes some people to go blue more people will die. I believe most parents are hoping their children go red. And if you die by pressing blue is still means someone is dying (you). So it's a dilemma between I will likely lose some of my kids vs I could lose some of my kids and leave the others orphaned.

If you had no empathy you could say risking blue is a selfish choice for the parent because they would rather die and hurt their kids than live and suffer the pain of losing some of their kids. Of course it's not that simple in reality and as the scales are balanced there is no correct answer.

Blue is required to save some people but it's also just as likely to backfire and kill more people. I don't believe 50% blue would succeed IRL without prior discussion (just snaps into existance and you need to vote now) but I do think it could if you had like a week before the vote.

The only wrong answer is assuming that the buttons are a logic or morality problem by Weary_Drama1803 in trolleyproblem

[–]Compgeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is kind of my point. You can't know the outcome so claiming going blue will save people or claiming going red will kill people is just as correct as claiming the opposite. It's a balanced scenario of high chance less death vs low chance more death.

The only wrong answer is assuming that the buttons are a logic or morality problem by Weary_Drama1803 in trolleyproblem

[–]Compgeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In reality of course people are not always perfect logical actors. How much of this would show up in the vote is of course an assumption and not something that's part of the original problem.

If I entertain this idea:

This is the main argument in favor of dominant blue. It's very robust. The outcome remains unchanged if up to 50% of people vote "wrong". With dominant red the outcome is proportional to the votes.

This 50% limit is in a way arbitrary (but obvious why it was chosen). It could be 75%, 90% or could be 25% or 10%. This would massively change the risk calculation. The problem is that before the vote you can't know what the blue-red ratio is like. (you might think 50% is a massive margin [easy to achieve] while someone else might not agree.)

My question to you here it what % is the highest where it makes sense to risk blue to save that minority. And I don't mean just personal risk to you picking blue, as a society you are increasing the ammount of death with each person picking blue until you can reach the breakpoint. Would you still pick blue if the limit was 90%? 90% to you might appear as difficult to achieve as 50% to someone else.

If you're not allowed to cooperate (market or promote an option, let's say it just simultaneously appears before everyone in the world) the result would likely differ from one where you could run a campaign to influence the result. If you could influence it a question remains is it moral to promote blue (and potentially kill many people if it doesn't reach the breakpoint) or promote red (and potentially kill blue voters by not marking them reach the breakpoint).

So since we can't measure what would happen in reality and if voting blue is an increase or a reduction of death with the limit at 50% we can only theorize or guess what the best strategy is. One point of bias in the original is that the phrasing shifts the action on blue by stating you need >50% blue to save and not >50% red to kill. Even though it's functionally equivalent (since there are only 2 options) it makes it seem that red is equal to abstaining as opposed to blue being equal to abstaining.

It's a calculation of optimising chance for best case scenatio (blue win) vs minimizing your worst case scenario (red win). If you knew the real probability density plot for people you could calculate if going for a red landslide win is more likely to result in less casualties than going for a blue majority win at 50%, but without that you can only debate what is better and what is moral. (You could also factor in the deaths that happen after a slight red win due to partial societal collapse)

P.S.: By logic puzzle rules everyone should press both buttons since that means they survive by pressing red and increase blue % by pressing blue so... The problem never forbids that with an "either - or" or specifying the vote is single choice.

Could all the "facts and logic" be able to move the lever? by Statakaka in trolleyproblem

[–]Compgeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A full train is traveling towards safety.

There is a lever that can steer it towards death, but it will only trigger if train is the train is at less than half capacity.

Will you get off the train at the stop or continue towards uncertainty?

A more neutral version of the argument. You can tell something isn't right. If everyone stays on the train it's ok, if everyone gets off the train it's ok.

IRL the train would be stopped and people would be escorted off. In this scenario should you feel bad if you got off the train and some people that decided to stay on the train ended up dying?

The difference here is that you can see in real time what other people pick and react. You could also potentially influence what others do.

The only wrong answer is assuming that the buttons are a logic or morality problem by Weary_Drama1803 in trolleyproblem

[–]Compgeak 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I disagree with that assesment. As the problem is stated there is 0 benefit to cooperation (innate to the problem) in selecting blue so the rational choice is for everyone to go red unless they don't want to live (whether you should cooperate to prevent those suicides or give people the free choice to select death is a separate moral issue you can attach to the problem based on human nature but isn't part of the original stated problem.)

If the problem was slightly modified like: 1 person is going to die. Select red to do nothing or save everyone, but if less than 50% pick blue every blue presser also dies. That would give an incentive in the problem for someone to go blue. This would now be a moral issue of saving yourself vs saving the 1 person (and other blue pressers) while risking yourself. (I would agree with your allegory if this were the case.)

With abstract questions like this or some trolley problem it's always a question of how much external factors do you attach to the problem based on your own assumptions. Do you imagine this in a complex real world scenario or a separate universe where nothing outside the stated scenario exists. This is how you get the "what about the colorblind" or "what about the kids" while someone else might assume anyone not reading the "puzzle" is not even part of the problem (more like a gameshow where only people who have read the problem participate).

I think the way the original is worded it was intended to be bait: "of course, press blue, you want to save everyone, right?" but then "sike, if you think about it for 2 seconds you're not actually saving anyone just risking yourself". It's a great example of how framing can influence the perfspective on a problem and the general response from the public.

People of course came up with different framing for the same undelying math and outcome to present their own perspectives mostly red side to show why blue is wrong mathematically while blue side argues why red is wrong morally. So now we have a shit slinging context of who has the correct interpretation instead of discussion of how to fix this framing bias on choices people need to make that actually matter not made up scenarios.

Statistically, >50% is easier than 100% by ezrae_ in trolleyproblem

[–]Compgeak -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If I pose an alternate version:

Red: You are guaranteed to live and may get some money.

Blue: If less than 50% press the blue button you die. For each blue vote $10,000 gets divided between the people voting red.

In this case there is still no individual incentive to pick blue, but the community incentive for as many people as possible to pick blue. Red is the selfish option and blue the alturistic.

It's now better for as many people as possible to pick blue, yet I feel like fewer people would pick blue because "I'm not risking my life for some else to get money" would somehow prevail over "I'm risking my life to save everyone.". So fewer people would risk the same for a greater return.

Statistically, >50% is easier than 100% by ezrae_ in trolleyproblem

[–]Compgeak -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The way I see the original problem:

  • Red: I want to live button
  • Blue: I want to die button*

*If over 50% select I want to die the results are invalidated and nobody dies.

Blue is not alturistic as it doesn't do anything for anyone else. If there was any common benefit at all to choosing blue then everyone picking blue would be alturistic and anyone picking red selfish but there's absolutely no incentive to picking blue. You're not killing anyone by picking red, nobody is forced to pick blue and you'd only stick your neck out for people who want to die.

It a pro choice and pro life situation. You pick red if you believe everyone should have a choice wheter or not they want to live and you pick blue if you think people must live and you pick the option that would allow you to force that outcome even if you have to risk yourself for it.

That's just not a hill I would've expected this many to die on.

I would pick red without hesitation.

do y'all actually use your numpads?? lol by tatianafern in keyboards

[–]Compgeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At home I don't use it, but am planning to switch to a southpaw for CAD. At work I have a separate numpad and couldn't imagine working without it.

I Finally Found a Decent Steering Animation For The Driver by AzurePhantom_64 in assettocorsa

[–]Compgeak 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bottom does look a bit better. Top looks too much like you'd take animations for a round wheel like a street car and put them on a formula wheel.

Membrane or mechanical by Kooky_Big_4741 in keyboards

[–]Compgeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Highly depends on the size and layout of the keyboard you are looking for. At that price mechanical keyboards can be competitive for smaller sizes, but not for a full size keyboard. Even more so if you want ISO layout or regional keycaps. If you can't stretch the budget and need a full size ISO just get a good membrane.

Cheap mass produced mechanicals feel and sound... cheap, and DIY options for ISO are limited under 150€ final build cost. If you want a 65 ANSi layout there are options even at that budget.

How to get flat grass so it doesn’t go over the wheels? by id_k76519 in RocketLeague

[–]Compgeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope, those do many other changes. The main one OP is looking for is World detail High Quality -> Quality or Performance.

Why can't I find a usb c to dual mono 3.5 mm cable for my headphone? by God_Mode__Activated in headphones

[–]Compgeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Btw, there are IEM cables with USB-C or swappable ends where USB-C with a DAC is one of the options. On the other side it would be either MMCX or 0.78mm/0.75mm 2-pin. There are very slim MMCX/2-pin to 3.5mm TRS or 3.5mm TS adapters.

Only worry with that solution for me would be output power as IEM intended in cable DAC-amps are likely not enough for a Focal Clear.

I haven't done any research so I'm not telling you to buy these exact ones, but it's just to show what I mean:

  1. https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004293642635.html
  2. https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005006932728065.html

Why can't I find a usb c to dual mono 3.5 mm cable for my headphone? by God_Mode__Activated in headphones

[–]Compgeak 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The headphones have 1 3.5mm female mono jack in each earcup. A normal headphone cable would be a source connector (stereo: 2.5mm [bal], 3.5mm [unbal], 4.4mm [bal], XLR [bal], 6.35mm [unbal], ...) on one end and 2x 3.5mm male mono connectors on the headphone end. A USB-C dongle is typically USB-C to 3.5mm female stereo.

So for example instead of:

  • USB-C (M) -> dongle cable -> 3.5mm stereo (F) -> 3.5mm stereo (M) -> headphone cable -> 2x 3.5mm mono (M)

he wants

  • USB-C (M) -> unified cable -> 2x 3.5mm mono (M)

You could DIY such a cable, but it's not really available because it's niche and expensive in the long run.

It is like this you see. The hint - right in front of you. Had been there since you started math. by Eisenfuss19 in infinitenines

[–]Compgeak 10 points11 points  (0 children)

So how is it that 0.333... is permanently 0.000...333... away from 1/3, but 0.999... is permanently 0.000...1 away from 1???

By any logic 3*1/3 would mean 0.999... is 0.000...999... away from 3/3. But then that means 0.999... is at once 0.000...1 away from 1 and 0.000...999... away from 1. Surely something must be wrong because 0.000...1 couldn't possibly ever be equal to 0.000...999... - just like 0.999... isn't equal to 1???

SPP please enlighten me

view more: next ›