𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠
- 0 Posts
- 127 Comments
People often say this but it isn’t really backed up by the science. Sure, there’s a bit more degradation, but not all that much. And by keeping it within 40-75 you’re effectively limiting yourself to using just 35% of a perfectly healthy battery, giving you far less capacity than if you had just maximally used it. Even if after significant usage you end up with only 70% of the original capacity, that’s still more than you get by artificially limiting yourself.
Extreme temps are a factor, but just don’t put it in the fridge or leave it in a hot car and you’ll likely be good.
See https://youtu.be/kLS5Cg_yNdM?t=183 for some actual testing on this.
That’s why it likely was a real helicopter. This is a pretty low-powered explosion, designed to just disable the helicopter. Here’s a video of it on a real helicopter: https://xcancel.com/LucasGimne79974/status/2029851274955431963#m
Same lack of rotor movement.
And here’s a screenshot of the video of the explosion, clearly showing smoke going underneath the rotors:
I don’t think Iran has the tech to make paint float in the air ánd survive an explosion.
Someone shared a video of a helicopter with tied down blades being hit with similar munitions, and the rotor blades do indeed stay fixed in place.
I also wonder how the smoke is supposed to appear underneath the rotors if they’re painted on the ground. And there also appears to be a parallax effect with the ground, also impossible for a painting.
It could still be a decoy (eg out of wood or other materials) but it really doesn’t look painted to me at least.
No, they don’t want you selling Steam keys for cheap on other platforms.
Valve actually doesn’t earn anything from steam key sales. They don’t take the 30% cut on those, only on sales made in the Steam store. The only requirement Valve puts up is that you don’t start selling these steam keys (which are provided for free) cheaper than you can purchase the game in the Steam store.
I don’t see that hindering competition at all. It basically allows other marketplaces to sell Steam games, enabling competition in the first place.
UE5 by default uses a lot of flashy tech that is supposed to improve performance, but a lot of it only does so in scenarios that are already extremely unoptimized. Using more traditional methods tends to achieve the same fidelity at a fraction of the performance cost. But there’s no time for optimization, and these fancy options “just work”, so there ya go.
The end result is a poorly running blurry mess of a game, but at least it’s out on schedule I guess.
Machine learning doesn’t necessarily require a centralized cluster. Usually running those kinds of models is pretty cheap, it’s not an LLM basically. They usually do better than human moderators as well, able to pick up on very minute ‘tells’ these cheats have.
I understand your point about edge cases, but that’s not something the average player cares about much. E-sports is a pretty niche part of any game, especially the higher ranks. You just want to filter out the hackers shooting everyone each game that truly ruin the enjoyment. Someone cheating to rank gold instead of silver or whatever isn’t ruining game experiences; they’re usually detectable too, but if you get a false negative on that it’s not the end of the world. A smurf account of a very highly ranked player probably has a bigger impact on players’ enjoyment.
5 days is the period for a no-questions-asked reversal. It’s a consumer right, SDD isn’t just B2B. Banks do in fact offer a “magic money back” button for SDDs.
SDDs are what happens when you for example purchase an item (regular SDD) or a subscription (recurring SDD) online and provide your IBAN to the company providing it. The company then taking funds from your account with nothing but that IBAN is done through SDD. And yes, your bank will let you reverse that within 5 days, no questions asked (precisely because only an IBAN is required).
After 5 days, it’s still possible (eg through MOI) but that’s not guaranteed. I know this stuff because I deal with it professionally on a daily basis.
This article is overly sensationalist/alarmist and doesn’t match the study behind it.
This is the study they’re referencing: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388
It primarily focuses on internet addiction and video game addiction. Pornography is mostly mentioned in passing as “likely similar”.
In it, they review evidence that these things can be addictive, and that people experience pleasure doing them (this is the whole “same-areas-as-coke-and-meth” thing btw; the brain is happy playing video games, and it is also happy doing coke). However, they distinctly mention that behavioral addiction is not necessarily the same as substance addiction:
Together with studies on Internet addiction and Internet Gaming Disorder we see strong evidence for considering addictive Internet behaviors as behavioral addiction. Future research needs to address whether or not there are specific differences between substance and behavioral addiction
The exact quote about areas of the brain thing:
Georgiadis and Kringelbach concluded, “it is clear that the networks involved in human sexual behavior are remarkably similar to the networks involved in processing other rewards”
The brain rewards sexual behaviour. Makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view, so not exactly a shocking conclusion.
And regarding the “brain-altering” thing, the study also directly mentions that this is simply what happens when the brain is activated through its reward systems. This “altering” happens for everything that triggers some kind of dopamine hit. It’s not the case that porn does something special here; a model train hobby for example would do the same to enthusiasts for example.
I remember this study actually, I’ve seen it before. It is frequently misquoted or represented in an extremely alarmist way, mostly by people with a dislike for pornography. But the study doesn’t back up their assertions that porn is anything special when compared to any other behavioral addiction, it actually expressly doesn’t.
The meta analysis addresses porn in general. That includes fetishized content like violent or “taboo” pornography. It states there’s no evidence that it makes sexual aggression more prevalent, and that population studies show that it’s at least correlated with a reduction instead.
We can nitpick the wording all day long, but ultimately I think the takeaway is that there’s no evidence that it has negative effects, and there’s at least some evidence that suggests it has positive effects.
We don’t have a specific cordoned off section for meth and cocaine in our brains. Many things trigger those areas of the brain, including some pretty innocuous stuff.
Porn isn’t physically addictive like meth and cocaine. It can be psychologically addictive though, but that goes for a lot of things out there.
Stuff like meth and cocaine can actually alter your brain, porn does not.
Anyone can develop an unhealthy relationship with porn, but that goes for just about anything out there.
There is a clear power disparity between a father and a daughter. It’s debatable if the daughter could even realistically consent in that case.
But a depiction of it in porn is in my view not inherently unethical. I can disapprove of it personally, but that doesn’t mean we should start banning it based on feelings of inappropriateness.
We depict murder and violence in movies and video games too. Actual murder is of course not exactly ethical, but we have no problem accepting it in a movie, because nobody is actually being murdered. You might not like to watch a movie like Saw or something (I personally don’t), but it doesn’t make the movie itself unethical. To me, porn is no different. There’s a clear separation between fiction and reality.
Where imo a line is crossed, is if said media actually makes a clear effort to promote these acts IRL. But that’s not the case here.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32691692/
Population studies suggested that increased availability of pornography is associated with reduced sexual aggression at the population level
The point is that all these measures you take don’t really meaningfully impact the battery life. Ultimately the only thing that matters is how much you use it. Ironically, cutting down on background apps probably helps your battery life more, rather than using those apps to artificially limit it.