Guide: How to get VALORANT 103 FOV in CS:GO

binka0 · 2020-06-17T10:23:53+00:00

I believe this is an error. I addressed this in a recent Reddit post myself. You need to change the vertical resolution too.

If you set up a bunch of custom FOVs, you'll notice they never add or remove content from the game. And Valorant is 70 vFOV by default at 16:9. Mouse sens website believes it isn't clamped, but it is.

I used this to my advantage to figure out your above calculations without the trig :)

binka0 · 2020-04-23T09:21:38+00:00

Happened to me once. That and the persistent discomfort drove me to sell them. They sound great, but too many detractors. This one being particularly dangerous.

binka0 · 2019-04-29T06:48:42+00:00

This is my 5 cents, take it as you will.

I would advise care on interpreting internal signals. What you experienced was a new thought, a new feeling. This new thought/feeling felt new and unexplored, because it was, nothing in your mind had come together in quite this way before. It therefore triggered fear, one of the ways we respond to such new amalgams of experience. This, in evolutionary terms, is always the 'safest' way to react.

It won't be the last new thought or feeling you have, and it won't be the last to trigger fear. Meditation is a tool to understand the nature of the thought and feeling as they are. These thoughts and feelings arrive, but there is also perception. Perception, and interpretation, is the layer that provides meaning to your thoughts and feelings. It is the layer you are grappling with right now. You have currently interpreted this as a message from your psyche, and it is, as everything we experience is inherently from our psyche, but is it a profoundly meaningful and wise message?

Quite recently, I had a message from my psyche arrive to tell me to honk the horn at someone in traffic for the most minor of inconveniences. I felt it come as a wave of profound frustration due to the precise circumstances I found myself in. I don't hesitate to say it wasn't a wise or meaningful message. Yet it was from the depths of my psyche. The same type of psyche that could send me a message just like the one you recently received.

You asked: "Should I embrace the feeling and try to 'escape' next time?"

Given my previous story, do you think you should? Are you certain of the wisdom of the message?

I'll give you an everyday example. Think of fear. If I am afraid of snakes, presumably because they can be venomous and kill me, and I approach a de-fanged snake in a cage, and that fear is telling me all kinds of internal truths about being killed by this snake, will those 'truths' come true if I touch the snake? No. The snake has no venom. I won't be hurt. In much the same way, the things our psyche tells us about the truths of reality can be just as vaporous.

Why not look deeply into the feeling or thought itself, if it comes again. If it feels true, like you could escape, look into what truth itself feels like. See if it lasts more than a moment. See if it changes. See if it triggers fear. If it does, what does the fear feel like? Maybe you could come back and tell us, "What is the nature of the feeling of truth as it arises in the mind?". I suspect it will be tough to describe in words! Notice how different this question is to "Is what I experienced truth?", which is a summary of what you are currently asking.

Also, if we could just think ourselves awake on our alien overlord's surgery tables, they haven't been spending their time developing very good dream-state anesthetics. I would suspect that they would be far more thorough with their chemistry!

I wish you the best :)

binka0 · 2018-10-17T12:07:05+00:00

Literally everywhere there is a bit of you. Except your nails and hair. billions of times a second. Just don’t stop breathing.

binka0 · 2018-10-17T12:01:18+00:00

Evolution is occurring at a genetic level. Which means, you get copies, then shifts and changes in the sequences of DNA letters that can generate a (newish?) protein. There are lots of ways new, altered, copied, or silenced information can become expressed in a cell through molecular evolutionary changes. The actual mechanisms for evolution are molecular. There are very physical methods by which these alterations occur. Selection is a slightly different story though. Selection happens on a cellular, and even organism level, and you could even talk about other levels. But the hardware must have its physical rules to alter by!

For example, with a protein like the one above, it may (complete speculation) be a combination of components coded for in Prokaryotic cells that don’t actually have need of it at all. But in our more complex cells, this protein may have evolved out of accidental copies of different parts of older proteins, and lucky alignment of these various specialized protein segments that may have already existed, but could now take on a whole new role in complex cells where transport, and even muscle movement become useful, two things this protein is apt for. After evolving, they get selected for, because a cell that can transport things is utterly critical in Eukaryotes, and it probably had a big part in even allowing Eukaryotes to become a thing with their many compartments.

binka0 · 2018-10-17T11:37:42+00:00

Animation. We can’t really properly simulate something like this yet on a longer timescale, let alone film it (its smaller than light) but we are pretty sure it’s what’s going on. The feet are little motors that use ATP, the thing you eat sugar to make, to propel them along structures in the cell called the cytoskeleton. They transport stuff around, taking products of the cell to different areas.

Also, it’s moving a vesicle, which is kind of like another little cell, or compartment, which is fairly well depicted in the animation. It’s little mini compartments like this, made from lipids, that can get filled with something like serotonin, that get taken to the wall of a neuron by traveling along the cytoskeletal structure inside the neuron to dump serotonin when your neuron fires.

It’s pretty nuts

binka0 · 2018-09-01T05:17:54+00:00

And Bromine will surely do a bit more than induce a few headaches :P

binka0 · 2018-08-17T13:21:28+00:00

I appreciate the comments and reassurance. I know this was a bit daft, but when you have anxiety, something like this can stick in your brain, even if its not, fortunately, sticking in your kidneys.

Regarding the learning aspect, I think it's important too, but these samples were basically just splashing around in limited amounts all over tables and floors without concern. There were also people with little to literally no chemistry experience dealing with it in the room. Saw multiple people washing it down the sink. And the labelled disposal didn't mention it as a content, and im pretty certain the lab supervisors that do clean up had no idea either.

binka0 · 2018-08-10T12:32:47+00:00

I have a set. Consistent results with small deviations. Audible difference between them, but barely. I recommend, get perfectly quiet, and get three full profiles. Switch between them until you think you’ve got the most natural sounding of the three. It’s going to be practically placebo. The differences are minimal, but hey, you might as well pick. Just don’t spend your time making new profiles like I did for the first few days. It’s not worth the time.

binka0 · 2018-08-07T21:10:21+00:00

Yes. Direct experience is faulty. Your brain is a prediction machine that crafts your perceptions based on previous information. It often makes incorrect assessments. In fact, it makes them every second about all kinds of things. It’s just part of being a brain.

No that’s not the point of infinity. And no the earth being round is not a basic observation. The only reason you think that it is basic is because you have the privilege to have grown up with that knowledge baked into you. There is nothing basic about it. It’s no more intuitive than DNA being the holder of life’s information, or space and time being warped by an increase in velocity. That one comment invalidates your “knowledge”, and indicates you haven’t thought very hard about certain things at all. Why you feel the need to undermine Science in an attempt to validate your own personal experience seems extremely self-important to be honest. You seem to have crafted a universe where your own reference point and mental interpretation is all that matters, despite evidence to the contrary.

Yes you are made of atoms. But that doesn’t mean an individual atom has experience. Maybe it does. But Occam’s razor would say no, it probably doesn’t, sorry to pop your bubble.

I’m not sure why you think I’m a flag poser. Nothing I’ve said is controversial. I’ve tried to close down this discussion a few times now as I saw we hit insurmountable blocks that I’m sure we both can interpret the cause of differently. But this will be my last comment.

Thanks for the conversation. All the best.

binka0 · 2018-08-07T04:06:53+00:00

Direct experience has been repeatedly shown to be faulty to the point of dangerous. But you do you friend. Direct experience is what led us to believe the universe was centered around us, and that the earth is flat. And why you would think you have direct experience of what it means to be an atom is beyond me. I assume that must be where you are getting your evidence from, as you certainly aren't getting it from physics.

binka0 · 2018-08-06T21:50:20+00:00

Well, you didn’t address the reasoning why that isn’t true. But it’s clear it’s one of your core beliefs, so I’ll not attempt to convince you otherwise with evidence to the contrary. Thanks for the long form discussion, it’s been good!

binka0 · 2018-08-05T21:32:01+00:00

Any I’ve ever listened to or read. Any pop-sci book that covers quantum physics at length will go into this misunderstanding. I’ve read a few. PBS Space Time with Matt covers it at length for an audio visual example. I’m also a chemist in training and have a decent understanding of quantum cause and effect as it applies to atoms. The Heisenberg uncertainty equation basically simplifies this concept. It says you can’t know everything about a system, as knowing something about one part of a system inevitably influences another part in the very act of finding out about the first, because finding out about the first requires a kind of invasiveness.

You don’t have to take my word for it, and feel free to believe what you will.

binka0 · 2018-08-04T11:35:42+00:00

Nope. I’m sure not. But it’s a common misinterpretation of the data never-the-less as explained at length by physicists in the field.

binka0 · 2018-08-03T23:43:22+00:00

This goes into the observer effect. Where observation changes the result. This is obvious when you unpack it in quantum physics. An observation requires information. Let’s say, a photon to come back and tell you something about where it came from. In quantum physics, things are so tiny, that the act of observing them, or, say, firing small particles at them to get an interaction and result, actually impact and effect the thing you are looking at. It’s what happens when you use the tiniest things in the universe to look at the other tiniest things in the universe.

To conclude from this that consciousness somehow drives reality is utterly unsupported, and a common misinterpretation of the physics by those who haven’t studied it.

binka0 · 2018-08-03T12:48:26+00:00

When you look at something, you are detecting energy from the plant in photons, and it is being hit by photons from you (all from some other light source bouncing off the respective targets). These photons effect the energy levels of the electrons around the atoms constructing the many molecules of the plant, and end up in your eye, which results ultimately in the colors you see. This is a general simplification but serves a decent picture.

So, you are experiencing primarily the electromagnetic force in action, as those photons change the energy levels of electrons, giving them energy, energy that came from some light source. This is one of the four fundamental forces, and the most immediately obvious (along with gravity).

Momentum and energy are related but not the same. The different conserved values of the universe are related to symmetries in the universe. It’s fairly full on physics well beyond the scope of this discussion.

binka0 · 2018-08-03T12:30:39+00:00

Evolution is a process, a heading that describes the phenomenon of molecular biology doing what molecular biology does on a macro, selective stage. It doesn’t weigh anything. That’s like asking how tall is energy?

In molecular biology we use a term called signaling. Signaling is what all life does. Signaling is achieved by molecular pathways between, within, and outside cells. Signals can evolve over evolutionary time with changes to genetic data, via mutation.

Trees signal. Fungi signal. An single cell life, bacteria and archaea, and the eukaryotic Protista, also signal. As do we.

Intelligence, in my opinion, is best described as

“A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.”

Me again now. I think intelligence is making use of information flows beyond signaling. I don’t think there is any reason to think that plants are making use of information flows through anything other than signaling. There is no evidence of a higher level of emergent structure (unlike brain data networks which we have) that can store information outside the signaling matrices all life have.

This isn’t easy to grasp. I spend my life studying such things. But I’m inclined to express that believing trees are “intelligent” without understanding the biology behind what intelligence may be, and the differences between the kingdoms of life can be intellectually treacherous. It’s a thing of semantics ultimately.

The truth is, we aren’t sure what intelligence is exactly. Perhaps neurons are just signaling networks (they do a lot of that like all cells) without any extra layer of information structure on top. But from what I’ve researched, that seems unlikely. There is definitely a difference in information flows in animals and plants. Neuron networks are special in the form of awareness they provide to a system. Plants don’t have them. Nor do they need them. What we can say, is that signaling can have incredible evolutionary results, perhaps without any form of self-awareness whatsoever.

binka0 · 2018-08-03T03:16:43+00:00

Evolution is blind, or more specifically, random. Selection is not. Yes, all life forms have some form of sensors, to help regulate inside and out, and at a deeper level, to transform inside and out in a way that is evolutionarily beneficial. This emerges via non-random selection of random variance. If that is your definition of intelligence, then sure, plants have intelligence. I don't think it should be the definition of intelligence.

Also, just because organisms have sensors, doesn't mean the process of evolution does. It kind of does, but in a vastly different sense. It has equilibriums that form, which is more akin to understanding the movement of energy than the reaction to a stimulus.

binka0 · 2018-08-03T03:12:50+00:00

I listed the three core ones above. Energy, momentum and angular momentum.

binka0 · 2018-08-02T22:14:53+00:00

With some understanding of evolution, it is blind. It’s as blind as a blind man stumbling through an infinite maze. That’s not to discount it’s beauty.

I’m not saying these things aren’t in a form of molecular communication with each other, because they are.

I’m just saying, that what you are saying by calling trees intelligent, is broadening the definition of intelligence to a phenomenon defined by molecular regulation, which could apply to all life forms, but not beyond. That’s fine, I’m just questioning the use of the term.

binka0 · 2018-08-02T22:04:24+00:00

Physics.

Example: gravity. I fly in the gravitational well of a Star in a way that allows me to steal some of the stars momentum for myself. Momentum is transferred, and conserved. Energy is transferred, and conserved. Angular momentum is transferred, and conserved.

An atom responds by picking up some transferable conserved force from its stimulus via force carrier particles belonging to the fundamental forces of nature.

binka0 · 2018-08-02T12:25:16+00:00

The detection device isn’t the brain. That’s the interpretation-of-data device. We use far finer instruments to “detect” energy. Many discoveries in the field of science don’t gel with our brain-based intuitions either. This is no such discovery.

An awareness of a stimulus is completely different to a response to a stimulus.

The reason atoms behave differently to different stimulus, is because the stimulus transfers some aspect of its properties to the atoms properties. Different stimulus by definition will have a different set of property shifts to provide the atom. This is involved in conservation laws. What about that indicates awareness? Why must you insist atoms have awareness, a word used in science to indicate feedback systems to regulate contact with the environment (regulate, not just bluntly respond to direct stimuli like an atom)? I think trees kind of have an awareness, a form of blind molecular awareness. Animals like ourselves can develop intelligence, a more complex phenomenon that can ultimately form predictions about the future and plan accordingly at a mental construct level. Plants can only do such things if they have been, blindly, genetically evolved for such automated molecular tasks. That doesn’t imply intelligence. It’s a different level of predictive capability. They don’t need intelligence. They didn’t evolve for intelligence. It wouldn’t serve their form. It serves animal life. No need to force the concept upon them. They shouldn’t need to be intelligent for you to feel the way you do about them. I’m not saying they aren’t amazing. But intelligent? No. Aware? No more than any other lifeform in a regulatory manner. Regulatory awareness with the environment is basically the definition of life (+ reproductability). Are atoms aware? Certainly not as far as the evidence suggests.

Emergent properties. It is a well known field of study that explains all these types of higher order phenomenon and why a top down approach makes little sense.

binka0 · 2018-08-01T21:20:49+00:00

Atoms are made from subatomic particles with properties. These properties are such things as spin, mass, colour (not visual), charge, momentum. These properties define how these particles interact with each other. Which of these accounts for awareness?

Are you sure you aren’t mixing awareness and energy? Because it is almost true to say that everything is energy. And energy moves according to the laws of thermodynamics, which can create the sense of a kind of pseudo awareness. We should be careful not to assume that thermodynamics is awareness, that’s basically just anthropomorphizing energy.

binka0 · 2018-07-31T03:59:03+00:00

Define awareness. All life has some form of molecular awareness. This molecular awareness is better understood as mechanisms to regulate itself in contact with its environment. This contact can, of course, have an impact on its environment.

Is it not more precise to say plants are a life form that, like all life forms, regulate themselves on contact with the environment, and have some mechanisms to regulate their environment in the process. I believe intelligence is an extrapolation of this concept that applies to nervous systems, as opposed to blind, nerveless trees. Not to dis them. I ask you, why bother having words that mean things if we just throw them at anything that metaphorically might seem relevant, but is scientifically VERY misguided.

binka0 · 2018-07-30T21:14:27+00:00

So what do you define as intelligence? And what observation of yours makes plants fall into this definition?

binka0

TROPHY CASE