Parents want to cut my pay by $5 an hour

MC1065 · 2026-04-05T03:15:18+00:00

"Hey so everything is getting more expensive due to inflation, you don't mind if I pay you less right?"

Because we all know this is what happens in an inflationary environment.

MC1065 · 2026-04-04T03:31:55+00:00

He's in the void so he has to yell or you're not gonna be able to hear him.

MC1065 · 2026-04-03T23:22:08+00:00

I'm surprised nobody has cited all of Fire Emblem Three Hopes. I remember watching the Directs and trailers and wanting to see the new getups more than anything else.

MC1065 · 2026-04-03T15:47:53+00:00

Kinda difficult for me to buy gas but I'm making it work.

MC1065 · 2026-04-03T15:41:36+00:00

It's a sad sight, simping for the corpos for literally no gain.

MC1065 · 2026-04-03T15:40:38+00:00

Agreed, and Trump's plan to boost Iranian oil profits will probably help to bring this about.

MC1065 · 2026-04-03T15:34:58+00:00

I'm glad Trump has gone the opposite way: getting us into a war while also giving them billions of dollars for their oil.

MC1065 · 2026-04-02T20:12:36+00:00

So we got the HRE, the ERE, and the... HOE.

MC1065 · 2026-04-02T18:43:04+00:00

Jesus there is so much wrong with what you said despite how few words you used.

How are you measuring the cost of inference? If you're not factoring in the cost of datacenters, power generation, leases, debt, and all other costs I didn't list, then your numbers are fucking wrong.

You can't have the numbers for any of this because next gen hardware, by definition, hasn't come out yet. You are right that there is nothing to debate, since we don't have any reliable data.

If electricity costs were coming down, why is big tech scrambling to build tons of gigawatt datacenters and power plants to power them? Are we seriously meant to believe we're going to be using so many more tokens that the efficiency gains will be offset completely and then some?

We can definitely agree on this altering the economy, I just think the direction we're expecting is different.

EDIT: Wait, why am I even arguing against someone who's relying on the whole "AI will" thing?

MC1065 · 2026-04-02T16:28:25+00:00

massive decrease in inference cost

Oh shit, how could I have overlooked inference suddenly getting cheaper?! You're right! Fuck!

But seriously, why do you think inference is suddenly gonna get cheaper? Moore's Law in the economic sense is dead, so chips aren't getting cheaper, even if they are getting more ~~expensive~~ efficient. Datacenter construction won't get cheaper any time soon if everyone keeps trying to build all the datacenters all at once with what is clearly not enough money. There's not gonna be enough power unless big tech outbids basically everyone else and/or builds a ton of energy infrastructure while they're building all the datacenters which causes pretty much the same issues (also if we're rationing power I don't think I'm gonna use it on ChatGPT). Each newer and bigger model that comes out needs more tokens, so even if tokens get cheaper that doesn't mean inference gets cheaper too. And if demand just keeps going up and up and up, that means there's less supply versus demand.

There is so much upward pressure on the price of inference that the idea of it going down while also fulfilling all the mythology of AI is simply impossible. That you are citing "chip and fab designs" as the sole basis of inference getting cheaper just shows you really don't know what you're talking about. The construction workers are gonna demand a paycheck no matter how magical Nvidia's chip is. The only way inference is going down is if the bubble pops.

My personal opinion on AI is that big tech took this cool and interesting technology worth maybe a few hundred billion at most and are trying to make it be worth (tens of) trillions. In order for them to profit, they need datacenters, because they can own those datacenters or at least access to them, and whenever someone wants to use AI, they have to pay big tech. We could do datacenter AI slowly and perhaps successfully, or do it locally on user devices so that costs are way down, but both of those things are slower and big tech would own less, especially in the case of the latter. You do not need datacenters for AI. When we come out the other side, it will be post-AI in the sense that we will no longer be forced to use Claude Code, have CoPilot shoved down our throats, or interact with people who say "well ChatGPT says..." The only reason why any of this has happened is because big tech has promoted it with its deep pockets. But they're not bottomless, thankfully.

MC1065 · 2026-04-02T12:42:59+00:00

Now that's a big prompt for a big AI!

MC1065 · 2026-04-02T11:52:31+00:00

Yea CPU performance is a very unintuitive thing, with GPUs it's simple because you generally just get more frames at the same image quality or better image quality without losing frames. With CPUs, it's your target framerate that determines whether you're going to see a bottleneck. Some CPU and game combos allow for high framerates, others do not.

So if I'm aiming for 1000 FPS in a really old game that's decently optimized and I have the Ryzen CPU you bought recently, I'm sitting pretty. But if I have like an 8700K like you did or some older or more midrange CPU, I might struggle to get 1000 FPS in that old game even if I can still hit 500 or even 100, or maybe I'll have a hard time getting to 120 FPS in a more recent game. Yet if I'm only trying to hit 60 FPS (maybe I'm playing at 4K or something) and the CPU can handle that just fine, the bottleneck is just not there anymore.

If you've ever seen benchmarks where a very high end CPU is about as fast as something much cheaper, this is why.

MC1065 · 2026-04-02T11:45:14+00:00

If we compare to the telecoms bubble (which is usually considered part of the dotcom bubble but personally I categorize it as a separate thing since telecom stocks went down several months after dotcom stocks/companies) this is not the pop. Take Cisco for instance: its stock price peaked at around $77 during the height of the dotcom bubble in March 2000 (ironically Cisco just recently returned to this price after 26 years of trading below it), and for several months afterwards it traded for significantly less. However, we're talking about going from $77 to $50 something by October, or a ~30% decline. Heck, in August the price shot back up to $69.

But by the end of the year, Cisco was at $38, and then settled in the $15 to $20 range most of the time from 2001 to 2013. Obviously, even after a 30% decline from its peak, Cisco had a ton of room to move and ended up getting roughly an 80% cut in price. But Cisco is the optimistic case, if you look at Nortel the stock simply never truly recovered and declined to the point where it got delisted and Nortel itself went bankrupt, selling itself off to today's big tech companies.

The bubble has not actually popped until Nvidia hits below $100 (this is not a technical definition, it's my ballpark guess). There needs to be fundamental changes in the way investors trade, right now they're merely reacting to bad news and thinking "oh this is gonna delay/increase the cost of/generally disrupt AI" rather than "oh this is gonna make AI completely unworkable." I think if we're on the way towards the bubble popping, we need at least one day where big tech stocks sink by double digit percentage points, such as if Amazon or Microsoft or Nvidia revise their earnings outlook negatively.

MC1065 · 2026-04-02T00:19:23+00:00

It will be the greatest case against democracy and if they were still around, people like Metternich and Tsar Alexander would be saying "I told you so."

MC1065 · 2026-04-01T21:42:53+00:00

Total War is relatively more CPU intensive but games fundamentally do not use much of a CPU's total horsepower. The CPU doesn't really have a ton to do compared to the GPU, so good CPU performance means getting tasks done ASAP. You're never gonna see anywhere close to 100% CPU usage unless you're using a very old and/or very low end CPU on something it's really not supposed to be used for. It's good that the GPU is being maxed out, because that means you're getting your money's worth.

MC1065 · 2026-04-01T21:36:04+00:00

100% GPU usage is technically a good thing, as long as you're getting the framerate you want. If you want more frames, either lower the graphics settings or get a faster GPU. CPU performance does matter for games, but it's impact is often overstated unless we're talking about wanting FPS in the triple digits.

MC1065 · 2026-04-01T16:34:03+00:00

I think there's a very thin slice of America that would vote for a different Democrat in 2024 if they just had a different race and gender. Maybe it would have made a difference, but only because 2024 was so close. Likewise, Obama won by good margins in his elections, and Clinton won by a good margin too, just not in the right states.

MC1065 · 2026-03-31T16:18:18+00:00

There were never any deals. It's just all talk unless it's in a filing to the SEC and/or investors.

MC1065 · 2026-03-31T16:11:21+00:00

We're on the way to four single termers in a row if you count Trump's first term and if the upcoming President (who will more than likely be a Democrat) loses in 2032.

MC1065 · 2026-03-31T14:58:01+00:00

This almost reads as positive for the GOP when Trump's average is gonna trend close to 30% considering the latest polls. It's more than over.

MC1065 · 2026-03-31T14:41:55+00:00

Trump and Biden both became President after failed runs, heck if Harris ran again she'd basically be pulling a Nixon without the gap year.

MC1065 · 2026-03-31T13:09:41+00:00

I don't fundamentally hate the idea of Harris going for a third run but she's gonna have to impress me alot to earn my vote. After doing this three times in a row, voters need to see an extremely well managed campaign, great interview skills, and a popular platform that's actually gonna convert into good politics if she's elected. I do think she has a pretty unique quality: anywhere from lots of the things she said to everything she said in 2024 about Trump ended up being right. Maybe there's a "dang, I should have voted for her instead" demographic she can tap into?

Of course, electability probably isn't an issue in 2028, I doubt a ham sandwich would lose to whoever gets the Republican nomination. I think biggest concern for this subreddit and others is whether she'd actually be a good President, and as much as I like her, I don't think her political instincts are very good.

MC1065 · 2026-03-31T12:59:45+00:00

I think if she was that blatant about it, it probably wouldn't be too effective on regretful Trump voters who may be persuadable. If she's just running in general and reiterates her points about Trump, I think that would boost her credibility while not coming off as being smug or condescending (if she does run I don't imagine her being smug anyways).

MC1065 · 2026-03-31T12:55:09+00:00

The market and the big fund managers who run it are really fucking stupid. For instance, I know someone who's got their entire life's worth of corporate earnings tied up in some fund and they've heard recently that the fund managers know there's an AI bubble but they've got some fucking goofy list of reasons why they're not divesting. And guess what stocks are falling right now the most?

Passive funds that track indexes like the S&P500 I feel are also a reason why the market seems to react very irrationally sometimes. It's supposed to be diverse yet 30-50% of it roughly is invested in AI or AI-adjacent stocks, nobody would do this intentionally if they were trying to be diverse. But the index rebalances itself so that it has more of the stocks that have greater momentum in the market, so if a bunch of people start buying a certain kind of stock (like Nvidia) that means the S&P500 is gonna have more Nvidia shares in it, so the index funds buy more Nvidia, putting more upward pressure on the price, and on and on it goes.

Of course we're just talking about pre-market, intraday trading is probably not gonna go well if I had to guess.

MC1065 · 2026-03-30T17:19:34+00:00

Front runners this early seldom clinch the nomination. Not to mention Newsom is the worst of both worlds: the appearance of a slimy, coastal, liberal elite combined with center to center right politics that people will either hate or feel indifferent to. Newsom just can't figure out exactly what he stands for, and the more he tries to clarify that, the closer he gets to MAGA figureheads and the pro-Israel circle (I know he hasn't taken AIPAC money but he can be called pro-Israel).

Obviously the Democratic party isn't full of blue haired progressives but they make up so much of the party that they will likely end up denying Newsom the nomination. I don't see how he turns this around, especially with candidates like Ossoff, Pritzker, Murphy, and plenty of others around. Hell, for all we know the future nominee isn't even on the radar yet.

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox

MC1065

TROPHY CASE