The real problem with OCing and failure, is that when a failure does occur sometimes you can't tell it has occurred. Part of the chip just stops working that might not be critical to the system. It's near impossible to tell this has happened without a lot of analysis that the average person overclocking is simply not capable of. Just because it happens to "work" when you first do it does not mean you aren't causing irreparable damage.
If the user overclocks their GPU and it results in a fire, what happens then? I suspect the motive here isn't just about preventing users from shooting themselves in the foot. It's about preventing them from melting it off in a fiery cataclysm of doom.
It's just a wall socket if you want a car to take a day or longer to fully charge. To most people, taking that long to replenish your car's power supply is a deal breaker. So is the abysmal range present in most of the current EV batteries.
You're right, it's not a small feat and it's not easy to do. At least, not successfully. I'm all for crediting a CEO who has offered strong leadership and direction to a company as Elon has. On the other hand, it seems like a lot of people are under the impression that the CEO does everything. That the CEO must know everything. That simply isn't true.
When I CEO credits his employees for amazing work we're all better for it. When he takes credit for the work of others we're all diminished by it.
You're missing my point. The infrastructure to handle large-scale EV use doesn't exist. Throwing around numbers comparing the number of EV stations to the number of gas stations is meaningless because you require 12 times more EV stations per gas stations to even make the comparison properly - and that's being generous and assuming that the number of pumps equals the number of charge outlets at each station.
So a few people have charge stations at home. Whooptifuckingdoo. That just makes the problem even worse by virtue of the fact that the charge station is only available to one person.
All of this is a classic case of trying to make numbers mean whatever you want them to mean instead of examining what the numbers really mean. In this case, the numbers mean EV adoption is fucking abysmal, and probably limited to the people who are well-off.
I assume everyone talking has no fucking clue what they're talking about until they prove otherwise.
In all my many years on the internet I've come to a single conclusion: most people venture so far out of their own domains of expertise that it's saddening. You see it constantly. Bring up marijuana and suddenly everyone is a medical expert. Bring up PC repair/modification and suddenly everyone is an Engineer.
This may just be my own unqualified opinion on the subject but it seems like nothing turns people in to a pack of complete idiots faster than anonymity.
When you say "the best person for the job" you have to include risk assessment. It's just makes sense. That entails things like "how long a person will remain with you". Even when someone has experience there's still substantial cost in bringing them up to speed with what is going on, the codebase, the tools that are used, etc.
Maternity leave means 4 - 5 months where that person is not available, and you're not allowed to replace them. This means you either have to make someone else pick up the slack for that time, or hire a temporary worker to fill that position who also costs time and money to train. Then what happens when a person has a change of heart and decides to just quit the moment they have to come back? Your investment has just been flushed down the toilet. It happens _a lot_ more than you think.
Think of it like this. If you show up at a fast food joint and ask for a job with a PhD on your resume there's a good chance you'll get rejected solely on the basis that you'll quit rapidly. We don't balk at that kind of risk assessment, because it's just logical. How is it any different with gender when it can be shown reasonably that there are serious and provable drawbacks?
"The fact that so much technology has been pursued or invented based on stuff seen in Star Trek means that it's the most SciFi of any other show"
No it really doesn't. It's as much bullshit as any other science fiction show out there. All scifi has "magic" in it so the story can be furthered. Frankly, Star Trek has an inordinately large amount of bullshit - but it's entertainment. Half the problems are solved with auxillary power, the deflector dish, a force field, or telling the engineers to redefine the laws of physics in 5 minutes. Saying it's "more scifi" is just laughable.
Know what? I'm OK with varying degrees of bullshit in my scifi. It's not meant to be real. So who cares?
Are you on glue? The human interactions and reactions in BSG were leaps and bounds more realistic than anything star trek has ever done. Now, I'll concede that there are some exaggerations in the show for the sake of dramatic effect but factor in the situation, and more importantly the desperation.
Now, I like my Trek as much as the next guy, and I'm not trying to say BSG is best and Star Trek is universally awful. However, It's far easier to identify with the BSG characters, because they're closer to real human beings than the characters in star trek ever were, or could be. Consistent and perpetual moral high ground that is ultimately always right with no grey areas? Come on. Star Trek could do better.
"It was also uplifting escapism entertainment that could still do serious drama, something I think we've lost with the current emphasis on dark violent dramas"
A lot of your argument is good, but fuck this statement. My biggest complaint with star trek has always been that it tends to cater to the "can't we all just get along?" bullshit far too much instead of focusing more on how human beings (and societies as we know them) really are. This is why the most critically acclaimed star trek episodes are almost always more visceral and serious than the others. It's why the wrath of khan is the best movie. It's why The Year of Hell was one of the best voyager 2-part episodes. It's why any episode dealing with the borg is insanely popular. It's why Battlestar Galactica was a thousand times better as a show.
Star trek always does better when the adversary is far more powerful than the Enterprise, larger than life, and grave threat that uses violence to achieve their goals. The reason this is better is because it forces the characters to come up with creative solutions under pressure and to face their own mortality.
ok, so you've got 40,000 charging stations. Big deal. you've got 123 million people. If even half of them drive, you don't have nearly enough charging stations. It takes 5 minutes to fill up a car. It takes anywhere from 1 to 8 hours to fill up an EV. Color me unimpressed. You'd need between 1537.5 and 12,300 hours to charge them all with 40,000 stations. Compare that to the 128.125 hours you'd need to fill every car.
It's completely unnecessary for everyone to learn how to code. If anything, more emphasis should be placed on practical things, like basic home repair. Understanding how your plumbing works, or being able to change a tire, is probably far more practical and relevant to lives globally than being able to write simple software.
It's not based on their genitalia. It's based on a risk assessment, and it's well founded.
I've personally seen it five times in the last 3 years at the company I work for. Women get pregnant, take maternity leave for the entire allowable duration, and then give their notice as soon as they get back.
No, that's not what they mean at all. It seems you wrote a small novel based on a broken premise.
The "lowering the bar" comes from the fact that if you want to achieve 50/50 gender levels given today's number of applicants there is a greater likelihood that you'll need to compromise at some point when it comes to the female hiring. This is not because women are inherently incompetent or incapable of holding technical jobs - it's because there are fewer of them interested in such positions. if you have 6 positions to fill and you have 10 guys apply and 3 women your options become somewhat limited when trying to fill the positions with the best person for the job. Maybe all 3 women are qualified and excellent, maybe 2 are great and 1 failed the technical interview.
If you get in to "filling quotas" essentially you run the risk of needing to hire people just to fill that quota, even if there's a guy there who is perfect for the position. That is where it hurts the industry.
1) Will we ever achieve parity when it's readily apparent that the majority of women prefer professions working with people over working with things.
2) How can we tell when or if it's "working"? Parity, even if it is achievable doesn't mean that the best person for the job gets selected. It means a quota was met.
"Hopefully we can agree that men and women are of equal intelligence and capability in STEM"
We can, without question. I would include all other races and nationalities as being reasonably equal as well.
"f you have a pool of 10 suitable candidates and 9 of them are men then statistically the chance of the best one being female is only 10%"
It shouldn't be able picking the best man or woman, it should be about picking the best person. This idea that gender must play a role in selection is as stupid when it's anti-female as when it's pro-female. We need to get to the point where it's pro-person.
The real problem is you get in to a system where you're giving preferential treatment to one group of people. Maybe it's not in the hiring phase - maybe it's in the education phase. For example, lets say a large portion of my education is paid for in grants, but only if I'm a woman. Is that still fair?
Passing up perfectly qualified candidates in order to appease a quota. I'm all for qualified women being seriously considered for tech jobs, but this will do more to harm the industry than it will do to help it.
Slashdot Mirror
The real problem with OCing and failure, is that when a failure does occur sometimes you can't tell it has occurred. Part of the chip just stops working that might not be critical to the system. It's near impossible to tell this has happened without a lot of analysis that the average person overclocking is simply not capable of. Just because it happens to "work" when you first do it does not mean you aren't causing irreparable damage.
If the user overclocks their GPU and it results in a fire, what happens then? I suspect the motive here isn't just about preventing users from shooting themselves in the foot. It's about preventing them from melting it off in a fiery cataclysm of doom.
It's just a wall socket if you want a car to take a day or longer to fully charge. To most people, taking that long to replenish your car's power supply is a deal breaker. So is the abysmal range present in most of the current EV batteries.
You're right, it's not a small feat and it's not easy to do. At least, not successfully. I'm all for crediting a CEO who has offered strong leadership and direction to a company as Elon has. On the other hand, it seems like a lot of people are under the impression that the CEO does everything. That the CEO must know everything. That simply isn't true.
When I CEO credits his employees for amazing work we're all better for it. When he takes credit for the work of others we're all diminished by it.
No. Like any CEO he became an expert in finding people who are experts in all those things.
You mean his many accomplishments that benefit the other rich people like himself?
You're missing my point. The infrastructure to handle large-scale EV use doesn't exist. Throwing around numbers comparing the number of EV stations to the number of gas stations is meaningless because you require 12 times more EV stations per gas stations to even make the comparison properly - and that's being generous and assuming that the number of pumps equals the number of charge outlets at each station.
So a few people have charge stations at home. Whooptifuckingdoo. That just makes the problem even worse by virtue of the fact that the charge station is only available to one person.
All of this is a classic case of trying to make numbers mean whatever you want them to mean instead of examining what the numbers really mean. In this case, the numbers mean EV adoption is fucking abysmal, and probably limited to the people who are well-off.
I assume everyone talking has no fucking clue what they're talking about until they prove otherwise.
In all my many years on the internet I've come to a single conclusion: most people venture so far out of their own domains of expertise that it's saddening. You see it constantly. Bring up marijuana and suddenly everyone is a medical expert. Bring up PC repair/modification and suddenly everyone is an Engineer.
This may just be my own unqualified opinion on the subject but it seems like nothing turns people in to a pack of complete idiots faster than anonymity.
When you say "the best person for the job" you have to include risk assessment. It's just makes sense. That entails things like "how long a person will remain with you". Even when someone has experience there's still substantial cost in bringing them up to speed with what is going on, the codebase, the tools that are used, etc.
Maternity leave means 4 - 5 months where that person is not available, and you're not allowed to replace them. This means you either have to make someone else pick up the slack for that time, or hire a temporary worker to fill that position who also costs time and money to train. Then what happens when a person has a change of heart and decides to just quit the moment they have to come back? Your investment has just been flushed down the toilet. It happens _a lot_ more than you think.
Think of it like this. If you show up at a fast food joint and ask for a job with a PhD on your resume there's a good chance you'll get rejected solely on the basis that you'll quit rapidly. We don't balk at that kind of risk assessment, because it's just logical. How is it any different with gender when it can be shown reasonably that there are serious and provable drawbacks?
"The fact that so much technology has been pursued or invented based on stuff seen in Star Trek means that it's the most SciFi of any other show"
No it really doesn't. It's as much bullshit as any other science fiction show out there. All scifi has "magic" in it so the story can be furthered. Frankly, Star Trek has an inordinately large amount of bullshit - but it's entertainment. Half the problems are solved with auxillary power, the deflector dish, a force field, or telling the engineers to redefine the laws of physics in 5 minutes. Saying it's "more scifi" is just laughable.
Know what? I'm OK with varying degrees of bullshit in my scifi. It's not meant to be real. So who cares?
Enter the straw man. Anything that is not positive must be "emo pretention 'dark' garbage".
Are you on glue? The human interactions and reactions in BSG were leaps and bounds more realistic than anything star trek has ever done. Now, I'll concede that there are some exaggerations in the show for the sake of dramatic effect but factor in the situation, and more importantly the desperation.
Now, I like my Trek as much as the next guy, and I'm not trying to say BSG is best and Star Trek is universally awful. However, It's far easier to identify with the BSG characters, because they're closer to real human beings than the characters in star trek ever were, or could be. Consistent and perpetual moral high ground that is ultimately always right with no grey areas? Come on. Star Trek could do better.
"It was also uplifting escapism entertainment that could still do serious drama, something I think we've lost with the current emphasis on dark violent dramas"
A lot of your argument is good, but fuck this statement. My biggest complaint with star trek has always been that it tends to cater to the "can't we all just get along?" bullshit far too much instead of focusing more on how human beings (and societies as we know them) really are. This is why the most critically acclaimed star trek episodes are almost always more visceral and serious than the others. It's why the wrath of khan is the best movie. It's why The Year of Hell was one of the best voyager 2-part episodes. It's why any episode dealing with the borg is insanely popular. It's why Battlestar Galactica was a thousand times better as a show.
Star trek always does better when the adversary is far more powerful than the Enterprise, larger than life, and grave threat that uses violence to achieve their goals. The reason this is better is because it forces the characters to come up with creative solutions under pressure and to face their own mortality.
ok, so you've got 40,000 charging stations. Big deal. you've got 123 million people. If even half of them drive, you don't have nearly enough charging stations. It takes 5 minutes to fill up a car. It takes anywhere from 1 to 8 hours to fill up an EV. Color me unimpressed.
You'd need between 1537.5 and 12,300 hours to charge them all with 40,000 stations. Compare that to the 128.125 hours you'd need to fill every car.
It's completely unnecessary for everyone to learn how to code. If anything, more emphasis should be placed on practical things, like basic home repair. Understanding how your plumbing works, or being able to change a tire, is probably far more practical and relevant to lives globally than being able to write simple software.
It's not based on their genitalia. It's based on a risk assessment, and it's well founded.
I've personally seen it five times in the last 3 years at the company I work for. Women get pregnant, take maternity leave for the entire allowable duration, and then give their notice as soon as they get back.
No, that's not what they mean at all. It seems you wrote a small novel based on a broken premise.
The "lowering the bar" comes from the fact that if you want to achieve 50/50 gender levels given today's number of applicants there is a greater likelihood that you'll need to compromise at some point when it comes to the female hiring. This is not because women are inherently incompetent or incapable of holding technical jobs - it's because there are fewer of them interested in such positions. if you have 6 positions to fill and you have 10 guys apply and 3 women your options become somewhat limited when trying to fill the positions with the best person for the job. Maybe all 3 women are qualified and excellent, maybe 2 are great and 1 failed the technical interview.
If you get in to "filling quotas" essentially you run the risk of needing to hire people just to fill that quota, even if there's a guy there who is perfect for the position. That is where it hurts the industry.
....
Wow. You managed to say everything I wished I had said, only you said it before I did and probably much better than I would have.
You need to ask yourself a few things:
1) Will we ever achieve parity when it's readily apparent that the majority of women prefer professions working with people over working with things.
2) How can we tell when or if it's "working"? Parity, even if it is achievable doesn't mean that the best person for the job gets selected. It means a quota was met.
"Hopefully we can agree that men and women are of equal intelligence and capability in STEM"
We can, without question. I would include all other races and nationalities as being reasonably equal as well.
"f you have a pool of 10 suitable candidates and 9 of them are men then statistically the chance of the best one being female is only 10%"
It shouldn't be able picking the best man or woman, it should be about picking the best person. This idea that gender must play a role in selection is as stupid when it's anti-female as when it's pro-female. We need to get to the point where it's pro-person.
The real problem is you get in to a system where you're giving preferential treatment to one group of people. Maybe it's not in the hiring phase - maybe it's in the education phase. For example, lets say a large portion of my education is paid for in grants, but only if I'm a woman. Is that still fair?
Passing up perfectly qualified candidates in order to appease a quota. I'm all for qualified women being seriously considered for tech jobs, but this will do more to harm the industry than it will do to help it.
it's already funded
This might be the dumbest thing I've read so far this year. It's ok for you to take your tinfoil hat off once in a while.
No, you won't even get close. Only part of the problem is the software, most of it is the hardware.
Then you don't understand the argument very well.