The main thing to remember is that prices are still inflated coming down from crypto boom, even as demand rapidly fell off. There have been reports of OEMs returning unsold GPUs back to nvidia because of it.
But no one is willing to drop prices, likely because the medium term financial goals for pricing have been set, and big OEMs and large company like nvidia lack institutional flexibility. So we're not going to have a "market implosion". But we'll likely have all the people that have been holding out for prices to come down for last two years just keep holding.
Or even worse. Change hobbies. This is the nightmare scenario for nvidia, because they spent a decade and then some building the market for GPUs in PC gaming. Folks they're marketing to are now grown ups with families. They have many, MANY other things to take up and spend their money on, such as children's sports or travelling. And worst part is, once they try it, some of them may find it more enjoyable than sitting in front of the screen gaming.
So nvidia is in a genuine bind. On one hand, they want to milk the crypto boom's price levels for maximum profits. On the other hand, they have to be very careful not to bend the pricing model too much, or they might actually cause a permanent market contraction. We're going to have to wait and see how they act on this problem. We may see much lower pricing in medium term future, or we may see a permanent market contraction on PC gaming.
Problem being that gap between 7xx and 9xx was about two years. 9xx and 1xxx generation was almost three years. Gap between 1xxx and this is going to be over three years it seems.
So your 970 will have to last almost a decade to be able to jump three generations at this rate.
Notably, I went to 970 from 560Ti, and that took only about five years. Card wasn't overclocked, and I don't do any crypto, and it burned out in normal gaming use. My current 970 is almost three years old, and it's going strong (knock on wood).
We had the same thing with "fur simulation" on nvidia cards, and other similar functions. How many games used that again?
That's the point. You're going to have a raster based lighting anyway. And then you have to spend time building additional lighting from ground up to get ray tracing, even if you use tools provided by others. And there's no real certainty that it will be an improvement.
And so, just like DX12, it would be economically unfeasible for years. A lot of extra work, for a high chance of negative or neutral result, and low chance of positive result that only a small amount of your customers would be able to enjoy.
Actually that is the tolerance of environmentalist movement. These are the people who were attacking relevant scientists for decades at this point for daring to investigate the issues being raised by them instead of just buying their doomsaying as is.
I suspect that much of the modern far left that has problems with the issues you mentioned would still have problems with how these people act.
Phtalates are not plastics, and are only relevant to large plastic garbage. As the story linked in TFA itself says, they come off the plastic once it gets ground to the millimetre-level size.
After that, they're diluted in ocean to irrelevant levels.
This is the result of said conflation. Microplastics start in micrometre range and go down to nanometers. They're overwhelmingly measured in nanometers, because most of them would need a decimal if measures in micrometers. Their main source is washing and drying of clothing.
The conflation of the original study on the topic resulted in people like you thinking that microplastics are actually the same thing as small particulates that come from plastic garbage in the oceans. They're not. The source is different, and the way they act within metabolic systems of organic life on this planet is completely different. They're two separate problems.
However they're commonly conflated in the media, because neither one actually sounds all that scary to public at large on their own. But once you combine harmful effects of plastic garbage with penetrating capability of microplastics, you have a winner.
Obvious problem being that in reality, microplastics don't have the harmful effects of plastic garbage, and plastic garbage doesn't have the penetrating ability of microplastics.
This is a lot of conflation of things, followed by claims that concern one, and not the other.
Microplastics are the micrometre/nanometre particulates. They are small enough to freely pass through cellular walls. By definition (which is being desperately conflated in this story to sell the outrage of the year), they cannot "clog the intestines". Their source is also not the plastic garbage swallowed by fish as it keeps getting ground into smaller size. It's the washing and drying of clothing, which keeps disconnecting those tiny particulates into the air, and that eventually end in rivers, and by extension, pretty much everywhere in biosystem for last century or so.
The outrage started when a recent study specifically on microplastic was published some time ago, and a "journalists" reported utterly conflated particulates that this study looked at with plastic garbage problem in the oceans. Those are completely distinct and separate issues, but when said journalists conflated them, it got a lot of clicks. So a lot of people are now utterly disinformed on the issue, because all they read was intetionally misleading reporting, instead of the source study.
I can't even seem to find the study in question any more because of all the outrage garbage journalism reducing signal to noise ratio to the extreme.
No, unlike the idiots who can't even read the story linked in the OP, which clearly confirms my point even as reporter desperately tries to conflate plastic trash with microplastics, it clearly states that the additives, which are the substances that might potentially have some metabolic effect, get shed by plastic once it gets small enough.
And plastic is metabolically intert. I stand by my views, unlike all the ACs spamming garbage that keeps conflating things to make this environmentalist false outrage of the year to sell views. Comes with the fact of being an engineer. You actually read things linked, instead of just knee jerking.
The first story linked in the OP quotes a specialist saying that even the plastic garbage in the ocean sheds those additives as it gets into millimetre range.
This is your brain once modern environmentalist movement gets to it. You become a religious fanatic, demanding death to those who so much as dare question your dogmatic beliefs.
>But, over time, plastic can break down and shed the chemicals that make it useful, such as phthalates and bisphenol A. These substances are common in the environment and their effects on human health are of concern to public health scientists and advocates, but few large-scale, definitive studies have been done.
So I'm afraid you have to pick one. You can't have it both ways. Either they're harmful because they're on the product, and then they're no longer harmful on plastic because they get ground and diluted off it in the oceans. Or they're not harmful, and therefore irrelevant.
And this remains the point. If you read even the story linked, you'll note that it clearly states that these compounds get ground off the plastic in the oceans.
From the story:
>But, over time, plastic can break down and shed the chemicals that make it useful, such as phthalates and bisphenol A. These substances are common in the environment and their effects on human health are of concern to public health scientists and advocates, but few large-scale, definitive studies have been done.
Translation: they are not in the plastic any more in the oceans, and we haven't found anything that would suggest that them coming off the plastic in the ocean is relevant to human health.
And this is a good example of a person who's threat evaluation systems went haywire from aforementioned conflation. He suggests that "I should eat plastic trash", which he understands would be harmful.
Without understanding that if his conflation of "microplastics are the same thing as plastics" was correct, every single one of us has been eating "plastic trash" their entire lives. Because microplastics have been here for at least a century. But it isn't. Which is why we are not suffering problems that much of wildlife eating actual plastic trash are suffering from. We don't have a lot of plastic stuck in our digestive systems, nor are we dying from it.
Microplastics do not have such additives to my knowledge. They shed those long before they become small enough. It's why this conflation is so annoying. Something that exists in one gets projected onto another.
Are you seriously suggesting that serious news organisations do not live to expose people to total garbage?
Your political affiliation should be utterly irrelevant here. Every serious news organisation exposes people to total garbage on daily basis. It's the core of their business.
If you do not comprehend this, you're beyond gullible.
This is honestly getting a bit tiring. The problem we have that is being discussed here is not microplastics. It's plastics. The plastic packaging etc, which gets small enough from being grinded by water to be swallowed by various animals, while remaining large enough to get stuck.
"Microplastics" are the nanometer grade particulates, which mainly come from washing and drying clothing. They are small enough to pass freely through cellular walls, and as far as we know are completely metabolically inert. As in they have no observable impact of any kind on the cells they pass through.
Those two are completely separate issues, with completely distinctly different sources and completely different effects. Plastic trash does indeed get accumulated in garbage patches. It does indeed tend to kill a significant amount of wildlife.
Microplastics are everywhere because washing and drying synthetic clothing has been a thing for a century or so. It's utterly harmless to biological life as far as we know, because the particulates in question are small enough to be mechanically irrelevant (can't get stuck in organs when they're small enough to pass through cellular walls) while being metabolically completely inert (they do not interact with your organism chemically either).
The fear mongering stories from journalists tend to conflate these two, and then project the harmful consequences of the former on the latter. This essentially acts in the same way that radiation being scary was sold - "it's everywhere, you can't see it, and it's really harmful" has a tendency to overload our danger perception mechanisms and break the system intended to evaluate the threat. Which causes us to overestimate the threat by a huge margin, all while generally ignoring it. I.e. "radiation is super dangerous, yet we fly on airplanes without noticing that it gives us a massive radiation dose".
Shit isn't metabolically inert. Plastic is. If you don't understand what that means, which appears to be the case judging by your opener, consider not talking about it.
Here in Finland, it gets very cold in winters. But you want to heat everything to above 20 degrees C because if you don't, you start seeing heavy increase in illnesses in inhabitants.
Then there's the mould problem. When you have as much isolation as we put into the building, they have a tendency to develop mould growths. These make people sick, and tend to require very wasteful repairs and in worst cases just tearing the building down. Even if you don't care about the people and just want to lower CO2 emissions, emissions from having to make a new building are a lot worse than not saving on heating.
It's like the much touted "performance functionalities" of DX12 that no one cares about to this day outside "give me the latest and greatest and I don't care if it ever gets used" crowd, and everyone and their grandmother is still on DX11 and DX9 as their main API.
Slashdot Mirror
The main thing to remember is that prices are still inflated coming down from crypto boom, even as demand rapidly fell off. There have been reports of OEMs returning unsold GPUs back to nvidia because of it.
But no one is willing to drop prices, likely because the medium term financial goals for pricing have been set, and big OEMs and large company like nvidia lack institutional flexibility. So we're not going to have a "market implosion". But we'll likely have all the people that have been holding out for prices to come down for last two years just keep holding.
Or even worse. Change hobbies. This is the nightmare scenario for nvidia, because they spent a decade and then some building the market for GPUs in PC gaming. Folks they're marketing to are now grown ups with families. They have many, MANY other things to take up and spend their money on, such as children's sports or travelling. And worst part is, once they try it, some of them may find it more enjoyable than sitting in front of the screen gaming.
So nvidia is in a genuine bind. On one hand, they want to milk the crypto boom's price levels for maximum profits. On the other hand, they have to be very careful not to bend the pricing model too much, or they might actually cause a permanent market contraction. We're going to have to wait and see how they act on this problem. We may see much lower pricing in medium term future, or we may see a permanent market contraction on PC gaming.
Problem being that gap between 7xx and 9xx was about two years. 9xx and 1xxx generation was almost three years. Gap between 1xxx and this is going to be over three years it seems.
So your 970 will have to last almost a decade to be able to jump three generations at this rate.
Notably, I went to 970 from 560Ti, and that took only about five years. Card wasn't overclocked, and I don't do any crypto, and it burned out in normal gaming use. My current 970 is almost three years old, and it's going strong (knock on wood).
We had the same thing with "fur simulation" on nvidia cards, and other similar functions. How many games used that again?
That's the point. You're going to have a raster based lighting anyway. And then you have to spend time building additional lighting from ground up to get ray tracing, even if you use tools provided by others. And there's no real certainty that it will be an improvement.
And so, just like DX12, it would be economically unfeasible for years. A lot of extra work, for a high chance of negative or neutral result, and low chance of positive result that only a small amount of your customers would be able to enjoy.
Actually that is the tolerance of environmentalist movement. These are the people who were attacking relevant scientists for decades at this point for daring to investigate the issues being raised by them instead of just buying their doomsaying as is.
I suspect that much of the modern far left that has problems with the issues you mentioned would still have problems with how these people act.
Phtalates are not plastics, and are only relevant to large plastic garbage. As the story linked in TFA itself says, they come off the plastic once it gets ground to the millimetre-level size.
After that, they're diluted in ocean to irrelevant levels.
This is the result of said conflation. Microplastics start in micrometre range and go down to nanometers. They're overwhelmingly measured in nanometers, because most of them would need a decimal if measures in micrometers. Their main source is washing and drying of clothing.
The conflation of the original study on the topic resulted in people like you thinking that microplastics are actually the same thing as small particulates that come from plastic garbage in the oceans. They're not. The source is different, and the way they act within metabolic systems of organic life on this planet is completely different. They're two separate problems.
However they're commonly conflated in the media, because neither one actually sounds all that scary to public at large on their own. But once you combine harmful effects of plastic garbage with penetrating capability of microplastics, you have a winner.
Obvious problem being that in reality, microplastics don't have the harmful effects of plastic garbage, and plastic garbage doesn't have the penetrating ability of microplastics.
Read the story and you'll find that the smallest they're talking about is millimetre sized. TFA conflates even more things than the story.
This is a lot of conflation of things, followed by claims that concern one, and not the other.
Microplastics are the micrometre/nanometre particulates. They are small enough to freely pass through cellular walls. By definition (which is being desperately conflated in this story to sell the outrage of the year), they cannot "clog the intestines". Their source is also not the plastic garbage swallowed by fish as it keeps getting ground into smaller size. It's the washing and drying of clothing, which keeps disconnecting those tiny particulates into the air, and that eventually end in rivers, and by extension, pretty much everywhere in biosystem for last century or so.
The outrage started when a recent study specifically on microplastic was published some time ago, and a "journalists" reported utterly conflated particulates that this study looked at with plastic garbage problem in the oceans. Those are completely distinct and separate issues, but when said journalists conflated them, it got a lot of clicks. So a lot of people are now utterly disinformed on the issue, because all they read was intetionally misleading reporting, instead of the source study.
I can't even seem to find the study in question any more because of all the outrage garbage journalism reducing signal to noise ratio to the extreme.
No, unlike the idiots who can't even read the story linked in the OP, which clearly confirms my point even as reporter desperately tries to conflate plastic trash with microplastics, it clearly states that the additives, which are the substances that might potentially have some metabolic effect, get shed by plastic once it gets small enough.
And plastic is metabolically intert. I stand by my views, unlike all the ACs spamming garbage that keeps conflating things to make this environmentalist false outrage of the year to sell views. Comes with the fact of being an engineer. You actually read things linked, instead of just knee jerking.
I recommend caution in your daily life. Your extreme naivete may cause you severe harm.
The first story linked in the OP quotes a specialist saying that even the plastic garbage in the ocean sheds those additives as it gets into millimetre range.
This is your brain once modern environmentalist movement gets to it. You become a religious fanatic, demanding death to those who so much as dare question your dogmatic beliefs.
From the story:
>But, over time, plastic can break down and shed the chemicals that make it useful, such as phthalates and bisphenol A. These substances are common in the environment and their effects on human health are of concern to public health scientists and advocates, but few large-scale, definitive studies have been done.
So I'm afraid you have to pick one. You can't have it both ways. Either they're harmful because they're on the product, and then they're no longer harmful on plastic because they get ground and diluted off it in the oceans. Or they're not harmful, and therefore irrelevant.
And this remains the point. If you read even the story linked, you'll note that it clearly states that these compounds get ground off the plastic in the oceans.
From the story:
>But, over time, plastic can break down and shed the chemicals that make it useful, such as phthalates and bisphenol A. These substances are common in the environment and their effects on human health are of concern to public health scientists and advocates, but few large-scale, definitive studies have been done.
Translation: they are not in the plastic any more in the oceans, and we haven't found anything that would suggest that them coming off the plastic in the ocean is relevant to human health.
And this is a good example of a person who's threat evaluation systems went haywire from aforementioned conflation. He suggests that "I should eat plastic trash", which he understands would be harmful.
Without understanding that if his conflation of "microplastics are the same thing as plastics" was correct, every single one of us has been eating "plastic trash" their entire lives. Because microplastics have been here for at least a century. But it isn't. Which is why we are not suffering problems that much of wildlife eating actual plastic trash are suffering from. We don't have a lot of plastic stuck in our digestive systems, nor are we dying from it.
Microplastics do not have such additives to my knowledge. They shed those long before they become small enough. It's why this conflation is so annoying. Something that exists in one gets projected onto another.
Neither compound you listed is plastic. Are you genuinely so ignorant that you thought they are?
Are you seriously suggesting that serious news organisations do not live to expose people to total garbage?
Your political affiliation should be utterly irrelevant here. Every serious news organisation exposes people to total garbage on daily basis. It's the core of their business.
If you do not comprehend this, you're beyond gullible.
This is honestly getting a bit tiring. The problem we have that is being discussed here is not microplastics. It's plastics. The plastic packaging etc, which gets small enough from being grinded by water to be swallowed by various animals, while remaining large enough to get stuck.
"Microplastics" are the nanometer grade particulates, which mainly come from washing and drying clothing. They are small enough to pass freely through cellular walls, and as far as we know are completely metabolically inert. As in they have no observable impact of any kind on the cells they pass through.
Those two are completely separate issues, with completely distinctly different sources and completely different effects. Plastic trash does indeed get accumulated in garbage patches. It does indeed tend to kill a significant amount of wildlife.
Microplastics are everywhere because washing and drying synthetic clothing has been a thing for a century or so. It's utterly harmless to biological life as far as we know, because the particulates in question are small enough to be mechanically irrelevant (can't get stuck in organs when they're small enough to pass through cellular walls) while being metabolically completely inert (they do not interact with your organism chemically either).
The fear mongering stories from journalists tend to conflate these two, and then project the harmful consequences of the former on the latter. This essentially acts in the same way that radiation being scary was sold - "it's everywhere, you can't see it, and it's really harmful" has a tendency to overload our danger perception mechanisms and break the system intended to evaluate the threat. Which causes us to overestimate the threat by a huge margin, all while generally ignoring it. I.e. "radiation is super dangerous, yet we fly on airplanes without noticing that it gives us a massive radiation dose".
Shit isn't metabolically inert. Plastic is. If you don't understand what that means, which appears to be the case judging by your opener, consider not talking about it.
Anything from properly stored garbage not allowing rodents in to underground vacuum garbage retrieval systems.
Here in Finland, it gets very cold in winters. But you want to heat everything to above 20 degrees C because if you don't, you start seeing heavy increase in illnesses in inhabitants.
Then there's the mould problem. When you have as much isolation as we put into the building, they have a tendency to develop mould growths. These make people sick, and tend to require very wasteful repairs and in worst cases just tearing the building down. Even if you don't care about the people and just want to lower CO2 emissions, emissions from having to make a new building are a lot worse than not saving on heating.
Inflation over two decades and then some.
Years. Plural. Many of them.
It's like the much touted "performance functionalities" of DX12 that no one cares about to this day outside "give me the latest and greatest and I don't care if it ever gets used" crowd, and everyone and their grandmother is still on DX11 and DX9 as their main API.
Inflation exists. Count that in.