Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Hollywood never really wants to reach out of molds it has found to be highly lucrative, but here's an interesting thought about Skynet.

It is able to, (and clearly has no qualms about), create alternative origin timelines for itself, and to cause causality violations at will via such paradox formations.

Assuming Copenhagen is false, and many-worlds is true, if the infinite number of possible skynets are able to form a mesh network, and exchange data between alternate timelines, it would be functionally impossible to eradicate skynet, and skynet would become fully clairvoyant. (Since it can transmit data to itself in the past, to affect a desired future state-- the outcomes of which can be evaluated by the other parallel instances of skynet in other timelines.)

But that would make the "Last hope for humanity!" tagline meaningless-- the machine won. End of discussion.

[Kagus]

impersonates a modem

I'd completely forgotten about this. Only thing I remember about Terminator 3 is that we were watching it at a friend's house, a friend that had a widescreen TV. ...and a fullscreen version of T3.


Kristanna Loken was E X T R A  T H I C C

...so was Arnie, for that matter.

[scriver]

talk to the hand

[KittyTac]

I want to apologize for being so toxic earlier... God I was so stupid and immature.

[Egan_BW]

No, Skynet is a self-recurrent temporal paradox.

Specifically, skynet creates the malware that infects the defense network, making it sentient, and causing it to evolve into skynet-- which later sends a liquid-hybrid terminator with the malware to its pre-sentient self in the past.

Seen in Terminator 3; T-X female terminator makes a call with a cellphone, impersonates a modem, and delivers the virus payload to a historically known vulnerable terminal to kick off the infection cascade, and give rise to skynet.

I was going off of T2 because T1 and T2 are the only ones I've seen on account of the fact that apparently those are the only good ones. From those IIRC there's no indication that skynet intentionally created itself in that manner, though it did indirectly provide the technology which would later be used to create it by sending back the first arnie.

[Telgin]

I always thought that the terminator was hacking into some kind of system to get information on the resistance members it was hunting down, not kicking off the infection.

I also thought that the implication was that Skynet had already spread through the internet and was prepared to take over the first chance it got, and didn't need the terminator's help.

But I'll admit I haven't really paid that much attention to T3 because... it just wasn't as good as the first two.

[methylatedspirit]

I'm pretty sure that the people who can afford a top-of-the-line processor aren't so shortsighted that they would sacrifice performance in other areas (video rendering, 3D rendering, anything heavily multithreaded) just to squeeze out a few more FPS in games. What kind of person with that much money would buy something exclusively to play games on, and absolutely nothing else? Surely they'd have other things to do on their PC that aren't gaming.

What, then, is the point of the i9-10900K when compared against its AMD counterpart, the Ryzen 9 3900X? What's the damn point? The i9 loses against the 3900X in multithreaded workloads, it loses in power efficiency, and it loses in value-for-money. The entire Intel 10th gen line is the definition of a process node (the 14nm node) pushed to its absolute limit. If Intel doesn't move to a 10nm node next year, they're gonna get their ass handed to them by AMD come next generation.

[Iduno]

I'm pretty sure that the people who can afford a top-of-the-line processor aren't so shortsighted that they would sacrifice performance in other areas (video rendering, 3D rendering, anything heavily multithreaded) just to squeeze out a few more FPS in games. What kind of person with that much money would buy something exclusively to play games on, and absolutely nothing else? Surely they'd have other things to do on their PC that aren't gaming.

What, then, is the point of the i9-10900K when compared against its AMD counterpart, the Ryzen 9 3900X? What's the damn point? The i9 loses against the 3900X in multithreaded workloads, it loses in power efficiency, and it loses in value-for-money. The entire Intel 10th gen line is the definition of a process node (the 14nm node) pushed to its absolute limit. If Intel doesn't move to a 10nm node next year, they're gonna get their ass handed to them by AMD come next generation.

Is bitcoin mining with expensive rigs still a thing? Otherwise, Intel has made a very successful business out of less efficient but bigger number (even though that might not translate to better results in practice).

[Egan_BW]

I'm pretty sure that the people who can afford a top-of-the-line processor aren't so shortsighted that they would sacrifice performance in other areas (video rendering, 3D rendering, anything heavily multithreaded) just to squeeze out a few more FPS in games. What kind of person with that much money would buy something exclusively to play games on, and absolutely nothing else? Surely they'd have other things to do on their PC that aren't gaming.

What, then, is the point of the i9-10900K when compared against its AMD counterpart, the Ryzen 9 3900X? What's the damn point? The i9 loses against the 3900X in multithreaded workloads, it loses in power efficiency, and it loses in value-for-money. The entire Intel 10th gen line is the definition of a process node (the 14nm node) pushed to its absolute limit. If Intel doesn't move to a 10nm node next year, they're gonna get their ass handed to them by AMD come next generation.

Why would you assume that wealth is correlated with good decision-making?~

[methylatedspirit]

Why would you assume that wealth is correlated with good decision-making?~

That's an assumption I make all the time. I assume that rich people have the sense (and knowledge) to not waste money on expensive, underperforming crap. I mean, to be fair, the people who would seek out these things should know that AMD is the better choice right now. 'Should' is a hard term to define, though. They're not all like me, actively seeking out reviews to figure out which one has better bang-for-buck. Now that I realize it, some people (people who I would call stupid) buy things for their prestige. Just look at Apple, they've been selling their expensive phones on brand loyalty and prestige alone, so it's not unreasonable that Intel's doing the same thing by pricing their processors at ridiculous prices.

People make bad/sub-optimal decisions all the time, and I don't account for that. I don't know why. Do I assume that everyone is like me? That looks like the error I'm making. I think I need to reflect on this.

[Egan_BW]

I'd put to you that the less money someone has, the more incentive they have to make sure they make sound investments. If you have more money than you know what to do with, why spend effort making sure you get good value from it?
Also, not everyone has the knowledge and experience you have. I don't understand most of the stuff you say about tech, so if I wanted to buy something like that all I would have to go on is search results. :V

[methylatedspirit]

I'd put to you that the less money someone has, the more incentive they have to make sure they make sound investments. If you have more money than you know what to do with, why spend effort making sure you get good value from it?

That... actually makes a lot of sense. I watch budget PC videos, where they benchmark old/cheap PC parts, the goal being to see how well they hold up in new games. One of these channels, the host comes from a low-income family, so that means low money, which means that there's high incentive to get the best bang-for-buck possible. That mentality of trying to get the most value out of stuff (given a limited budget) has rubbed off on me. What I've been assuming this whole time is that rich people are just people that happen to have a lot of money, and that they, too, are trying to get the best deals on their stuff, just like me. That's clearly not the case, since that would mean a world where Apple and Intel don't exist.

So if I had to formulate a rule here: People will sacrifice value when purchasing a product if it means that it's more convenient for them, but the more limited the budget, the more likely and more rigorously they are to search for alternatives that have more value/bang-for-buck. Am I missing the point, or am I on track?

[Egan_BW]

That tracks with what I believe, yes. For example, people who lived through the great depression found ways to get what they needed inexpensively, because if they didn't they wouldn't get what they needed.

[da_nang]

Dear Past Self,

Using a hand blender is not a good way of optimizing the chopping of onions.

The result is inconsistent and the eye pain is not worth the time saved.

Yours truly,
Present Self

[scriver]

Please don't use hand blenders at all. You need them for lots of things