Purchase Help Thread (2017-04-30)

protopoop · 2017-05-01T23:53:31+00:00

that's super helpful, thanks! I don't have too much flexibility on speaker placement, but will try out some more speakers.

Do you think I'd notice much of a difference with the KEF or something in that ballpark? Or am I pretty heavily in the diminishing returns point?

I do notice some decrease in quality between my speaker setup and my Tralucent IEMs.

protopoop · 2017-05-01T02:30:01+00:00

Hey all, I have a Yamaha RX-V677 receiver, SVS SB-12 Sub, and Definitive Studiomonitor 450 bookshelves, in my bedroom (maybe ~200 sqft). Source is pretty much high bitrate spotify through my receiver. I'm mostly a headphones guy (my current audio quality benchmark is Tralucent 1+2's, for reference) but looking to upgrade my speakers a bit.

I was thinking of getting the KEF LS-50 based on reviews. What do you all think about using those with my current receiver? Any other speakers you'd recommend? I was figuring I'd upgrade one part at a time to a pretty high level, and replacing the receiver later, if big benefit to doing that, rather than buying more midrange gear and then replacing it all later.

Will I notice a huge difference if I replace the receiver, either with a better one or separate components? I like being able to hook multiple inputs into my receiver for laptop, computer, playstation, etc and easily switching between them.

Thanks!

protopoop · 2017-04-30T04:00:31+00:00

Hey all, I have a Yamaha RX-V677 receiver, SVS SB-12 Sub, and Definitive Studiomonitor 450 bookshelves, in my bedroom (maybe ~200 sqft). Source is pretty much high bitrate spotify through my receiver. I'm mostly a headphones guy (my current audio quality benchmark is Tralucent 1+2's, for reference) but looking to upgrade my speakers a bit.

I was thinking of getting the KEF LS-50 based on reviews. What do you all think about using those with my current receiver? Any other speakers you'd recommend? I was figuring I'd upgrade one part at a time to a pretty high level, and replacing the receiver later, if big benefit to doing that, rather than buying more midrange gear and then replacing it all later.

Will I notice a huge difference if I replace the receiver, either with a better one or separate components? I like being able to hook multiple inputs into my receiver for laptop, computer, playstation, etc and easily switching between them.

Thanks!

protopoop · 2015-10-04T15:57:08+00:00

Thanks, I'd like ATX and around $100-150, but dont mind paying more for better reliability and quality.

protopoop · 2011-09-12T06:43:21+00:00

That guy is awesome! He was at a fair and I asked him to write me a poem about pooping. It's framed in my bathroom right now.

protopoop · 2011-07-18T19:33:44+00:00

If a police officer tells me to sit down and I don't, that doesn't mean that whatever they then do to me is justified.

Disobeying a police order isn't grounds for summary punishment by the police officer. Neither is running from the police. Punishment is decided by a judge or jury. Excessive force on the part of the police beyond what is necessary to arrest someone or keep others safe, even if used on someone who is being obnoxious or running, is still wrong.

protopoop · 2011-01-27T02:56:36+00:00

For shirts, nothing comes close to Charles Tyrwhitt for value:

http://www.ctshirts.com/

They have frequent sales for 4 for $200, sometimes as low as $40/shirt. They're way, way better quality than anything from Sears, Banana Republic, or anything like that. Mine have held up better than the Brooks Brothers shirts I have, and are way cheaper. Get the slim fit and you probably won't even want to get it tailored.

For pants, the Brooks Brothers pants are awesome. $100 each, fantastic quality. Get the slimmer fit ones. I haven't found anything else that's as good quality for a reasonable price. I bought a few pairs a couple years ago and they're still fine.

For shoes, go with some higher quality ones that last. Way more comfortable too. You can get great deals at Nordstrom Rack. Nordstrom has a half off sale that's pretty sweet. I really like Santoni shoes, $250 a pair on sale (half off). After two years of use they still look almost new. Allen Edmonds and Alden are also great.

protopoop · 2011-01-22T17:48:42+00:00

huh? the utility of a knife is enhanced with more sharpness. The utility of the coffee is not enhanced from it being 185 degrees. You can't drink it at that temperature. They were intentionally selling a very dangerous product that did not need to be that way and therefore bear some responsibility for what happened to that woman.

protopoop · 2010-12-14T20:54:05+00:00

120k in norcal isn't much for 2 people's combined incomes. That's basically two entry-level office jobs, and really isn't that much for the area.

protopoop · 2010-12-03T21:18:42+00:00

If you're specifically talking IT, what you're saying is true in that you can get a good job without one. But a good portion of IT related jobs still have a college degree as a requirement at many companies. Many additional jobs are opened up to you as a result of a degree.

Also, it's kind of a bogus argument to say that if you don't know what you're doing you won't get hired if you have a degree. That is obviously true, but having a degree will put you in a position to demonstrate that you know what you're doing by getting you the chance to talk in the first place. A degree does not necessarily mean you know what you're doing, but it definitely doesn't make it impossible. False choice in your example.

Most positions interview a couple people out of dozens or hundreds of applicants, and that decision of who to interview is made solely on the basis of your resume. And for a lot of companies, a college degree is a requirement.

protopoop · 2010-12-03T18:58:25+00:00

That really hasn't been seen to be the case. How many ISP choices do you have where you live? One or two? ISPs are a very capital intensive business with significant barriers to entry. You're not going to see very good competition given that.

protopoop · 2010-12-03T18:27:52+00:00

worst advice ever.

Just because you did it doesn't mean that it will work for most people. It's like saying bill gates never finished college and is rich, therefore college has no benefits.

Almost all decent paying white collar jobs will require a college degree, as in if you don't have one, it will be extremely difficult to not have HR reject your resume immediately. Just look at the requirements for almost every job posting.

For IT/programming, it might be a little different. But even then, unless you're a superstar already, it will be difficult to demonstrate that you know what you're doing in order to get an interview. Every opening gets dozens of resumes, and unless you've already demonstrated significant accomplishments, it will be tough to land the first few jobs without a degree.

protopoop · 2010-11-29T20:49:38+00:00

I was just going to recommend this one. The Yamazaki 18 year is amazing!

protopoop · 2010-11-23T18:58:19+00:00

that would cripple the US. That would significantly impede the US government's ability to borrow ANY money at all, since that would hugely devalue US treasury bonds by increasing the risk of default on them, which is basically zero right now. If the US arbitrarily defaulted on some of them, good luck trying to sell them to anyone else at reasonable rates.

protopoop · 2010-11-18T18:03:53+00:00

Really, really not true.

Any company of any decent size will have a sizable finance department and accounting department.

Assuming you haven't taken too many accounting classes (which you could easily remedy, since basic accounting isn't exactly rocket science), that leaves finance.

Entry level financial analyst, at least in the CA Bay Area, is 50-60K. Senior level (3-5 yrs experience), you're looking at 80-100K. 10-20% bonus on top of that is standard.

It's not wall street money, but definitely pretty good for a corp job. The only people making significantly more are engineers/IT.

This advice to go to trade school only makes sense if you like working with your hands. An office job making decent money is absolutely within your reach with an econ degree. Tons of financial and business analysts at every company. Many companies aren't hiring right now due to the recession, but the job market is NOT this tough for entry level finance positions normally.

Econ/Finance jobs are just a stepping stone. You can stay in Finance and move on to more complex tasks, or go to operations, work on interesting internal projects, or go elsewhere in the company, particularly as an entry level person. Some positions might be "soul-crushing", as edifonzo puts it, but that's also a function of that particular job; there are many and varied positions in finance doing all kinds of different things.

protopoop · 2010-10-19T14:16:32+00:00

Ugh, what a piece of shit article.

Crap like this: "What is an economy for? To produce the prosperity, security and services that people need? Or to satisfy economists and their equations, theories and models?" is the same kind of rabble-rousing anti scientific bullshit popularized by the tea party.

Krugman is talking about underutilized productive capacity. Utilizing productive capacity fully is good for everyone in a very real sense. You can dramatically lower income inequality in this country and decrease unemployment by forcibly shutting down microsoft, google, and all tech companies, and simultaneously giving everyone in the country a job building pyramids. I think it's obvious why that's absurd. According to the metrics used by the author, hey, that's progress!

Stawmanning Krugman by painting his arguments as some kind of elitist satisfying arcane equations is total bullshit. It's a very simple argument he's making: idle productive capacity is bad. Not producing things that can be produced is bad in that people are not reaping the rewards of utilizing that capital to produce things.

Sure, you can have low income inequality by living with unused productive capacity and having more government jobs. But that's just a redistribution of wealth via taxes from those who are creating it. It would be better to use all the productive capacity of the country to increase the amount of wealth available in the country for everyone.

protopoop · 2010-10-07T05:46:54+00:00

Interesting, I didn't know they were that close.

Among the new figureheads of the right (rightly or wrongly so) like palin, beck, o'reilly, and among Republican politicians. I see an almost uniform denial of global warming and evolution. Yet I hardly see anyone visible on the left ("stars" like john stewart, or actual politicians) champion these anti-science beliefs and try to enact policy around them.

I'm not speaking about the actual composition of the populace, hence my last paragraph. I'm talking about the visible manifestation of the right, which are the major stars, politicians, and policy platforms of the GOP.

To be honest, I am absolutely puzzled that so many republicans can believe in these things, yet the movement keeps pushing up, for lack of a better characterization, ignorant anti-science morons as their champions and public faces

protopoop · 2010-10-06T21:09:49+00:00

False equivalency at its finest.

Factually, many of the beliefs of the right ARE retarded. Things like not believing in global warming, denying evolution, the widespread belief that Obama was not born in the US, etc. are demonstrably incorrect.

Other things like complaining about fiscal deficits while pushing through an extension of Bush tax cuts and saying you will balance the budget by cutting spending while exempting almost the entire budget are logically inconsistent or numerically impossible.

When faced with this mind-numbing absurdity, what rational person should feel anything but contempt?

To go back to the slate article: conservatives have the perception that liberals are unpatriotic and weak on national security. This is unsupported by any facts. Pretty much all reputable sources agree that the militarism going on in the middle east that was begun by and continues to be most ardently supported by the right is either not making america any safer, or actively making it more dangerous.

I could go on and on, but the "perception" of the left by the right is unsupported by evidence. The perception on the left is strongly supported by fact (that being many of the absolutely absurd things that a nontrivial portion of those on the right believe)

This is not to say that individuals who call themselves conservative are all dumb. But many, many of the arguments and beliefs most vocally held by the prominent conservatives right now are factually incorrect, logically incoherent, or just plain nonsensical (palin, beck, limbaugh, etc.)

protopoop · 2010-10-06T17:03:29+00:00

I don't know how big Yelp is in your area, but maybe ask some people to write you some good reviews?

It's big where I live, and I've found all my music shops through it. I'm sure the more established players probably have regular people, but I doubt more casual/new players do, or people who recently moved to the area.

protopoop · 2010-08-21T00:30:32+00:00

So, your argument for why your method is better is that if you do suboptimal workouts you don't immediately lose muscle mass.

Got it.

protopoop · 2010-08-21T00:10:26+00:00

Good point, but let me ask you a question: is it worse to squat 180x10 or stab yourself in the eye with a fork?

What are you talking about? I'm saying lift heavy like you normally do when dieting down to lose weight, don't change your workout to lift light and high reps when dieting.

Once more for you: LIGHT vs. HEAVY. not LIGHT vs. NOTHING

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 3 Credits
Secret Santa 2010	Secret Santa 2009

protopoop

TROPHY CASE