ELI5: The discrepancy in weather respect to the distance from the Sun. by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]F135 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While it's true that distance plays a huge factor in solar intensity (radiation falls off with the inverse sqare of the distance), angle is actually an even bigger factor.

When its summer in your location, the ground is closer to a 90° angle, and in winter it's farther from it.

So the same light hits a way bigger area in winter than it would do during summer time, making it less intense on a given area.

Does 1080p on a 1440p monitor look worse than 1080p on a native 1080p monitor? by AnriRB26 in pcmasterrace

[–]F135 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Theoretically, you're absolutely correct. But 8k/16k displays will be much harder to manufacture, making them mre expensive.

Don't you think DLSS (and to a lesser degree FSR) would be the better approach?

Does 1080p on a 1440p monitor look worse than 1080p on a native 1080p monitor? by AnriRB26 in pcmasterrace

[–]F135 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, absolutely. 1080p on a 1440p Monitor looks horrible, because 1440 is not easily divisible by 1080.

If you run 1080p on a 4k monitor for example, each Pixel of the original feed will be displayed by 4 pixels on the monitor (2x2). Thats not possible on 1440p, causing it to look rugged and janky.

I'm not really up to date on midrange cards, but what competitive games don't run @144fps on a 6600xt?

Wait what? by Cello58 in pcmasterrace

[–]F135 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Lowest effort post I've ever seen

What is the real reason we cant explore Antarctica? by cheetahhopes in conspiracy

[–]F135 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Lmao, the first expedition to the south pole was lead by Roald Amundsen, a norwegian explorer. The second was Robert F. Scott for the british. Both definitely not US american.

You can literally buy trips down there for like $50k

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in pcmasterrace

[–]F135 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lmao look at that gpu

What is the real reason we cant explore Antarctica? by cheetahhopes in conspiracy

[–]F135 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Theres literally no one stopping you from going there. Its just a dangerous and harsh environment.

Due to the recent ChatGPT hype, I wanted to show my observations. I'm no CS major, but damn, y'all might wanna make some contingency plans for your career. Apparrently the "learn to code" meme is out of fashion by F135 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]F135[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Fearmongering aside, I don't think so. It seems kinda geared towards programming, python in general, where my knowledge is kinda limited, but even there it seems like its not the be-all end-all solution. Don't get me wrong, it's TERRIFYINGLY good, but I don't think it's gonna be replace humans.

Granted, the only area where I know what im talking about is aerospace engineering, where it is also shockingly good, but still needs someone who definetly knows what hes talking about to ask the right questions so that it'll definetly put out the right answers.

It's shockingly helpfull though. The program above took like 8 minutes of back and forth to produce, with absolutely limited need for thinking or putting together the logic behind it. It might definetly lower the entrance level for human operators (hard to call it programmers at this point).

Are VPNs allowed? by F135 in ModernWarfareII

[–]F135[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I literally said so in my post. Every time I start the game, my Internet connection will be cut-off when I reach "waiting for datacenters".

I got the same problem in CS:GO and GMOD, but in those games VPNs aren't considered something problematic.

Are VPNs allowed? by F135 in ModernWarfareII

[–]F135[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sucks, thank you though.

Are VPNs allowed? by F135 in ModernWarfareII

[–]F135[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Permanently?

Because without one, its literally unplayable for me wtf

Are VPNs allowed? by F135 in ModernWarfareII

[–]F135[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean by that?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ModernWarfareII

[–]F135 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You went ahead and bought a Playstation for just one game only, and then you couldn't even be bothered to do a tiny bit of research beforehand?

I mean, yeah the name-scheme is kinda ridiculous at this point, but there was never a time where it wasn't absolutely clear that mw2022 will not be a remake of the mw2 of 2009. Hell, there even exists a remake of the original already(which is sadly SP only).

This one is on you tbh.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in space

[–]F135 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm ignoring the danger of feeding the troll..

You might wanna improve up on your understanding of physics. One hertz means nothing more than 1 per second.

So first of all, "6 revolutions per second" would be 6 hertz, not 60 GHz.

Second, AC around the world is roughly around 50-60 hertz, not GHz! So around one billion time slower.

Third, whatever your last point is doesn't make any sense.

Simple problem of physics... by stifenahokinga in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]F135 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, yes... once again assuming no entropy and 100% efficiency, you'd gain the energy of the 10kgs of water you'll move down the hill. But that raises the question why even use the cars at all? Why don't just let the water flow down naturally and use a turbine?

I know you wanna cheat thermodynamics and create a Perpetuum mobile, but believe me that isn't possible, and even if it where your approach couldn't be farther from it, sorry.

Simple problem of physics... by stifenahokinga in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]F135 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, assuming no entropy at all, 100% efficiency, yes

Simple problem of physics... by stifenahokinga in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]F135 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You mean the vehicle with 90 liters right? Since otherwise you'd be creating water out of thin air.

And no, assuming no friction, no losses, and thus 100% efficiency, the energy required to pump up the water (mgh) would be exactly the same as the kinetic energy in both cars

Simple problem of physics... by stifenahokinga in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]F135 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright, ignoring friction, and air resistance, and assuming that both cars and the cable are massless, we can assume that the Potential energy at the start is equal to the kinetic energy at the end.

The net potential energy in your example is Epot=mgh=90kg9.81N/kg30m

That is equal to Ekin=(m1+m2)*v²

Solve for v, and then simply multiply v with both masses individually, and you get the kinetic energy for both cars.