My interpretation is that synthehol isn't supposed to be a copy of alcohol, it's designed to give the positive effects of alcohol without the downsides, so that taste is likely not the main consideration.

More like Sony doesn't want to cannibalize selling their own dedicated Blu-ray players for a much higher profit margin.

A $100 bluray drive, an Ugoos am6, and coreelec can get play everything for way less than a high end bluray player that can cost $1000.

I think we are entering a different era.

Once upon a time shrinking nodes came with cost reductions for the same amount of compute.

With the new bleeding edge nodes, this is not so true, you can increase compute density, but the cost of new nodes is astronomical, so prices go up too.

Many improvements recently are more architectural in nature, like zen ccds to decrease costs.

The architectural improvements will continue to scale, but node improvements are slowing, we are right on the edge of what is physically possible with silicon.

The improvements in games have slowed a ton too.

Each new generation of consoles has started to reach diminishing returns for graphics. Ray tracing seems more like a technology that is being pushed to sell hardware, rather than actually improving graphics efficiently.

The next high compute case might need more creative solutions other than throwing more compute at it. Like eye tracking for VR which reduces compute demand greatly

Shame it doesn't support dolby vision though.

Transporting food halfway across the world ain't free either.

Not in one exposure. Human eyes are much better with dealing with extremely high contrasts.

Cameras can be much more sensitive, but at the cost of overexposing brighter regions in an image.

While pork and poultry are not great for the environment either, they have nothing on the methane emissions of ruminating animals like cows.

I can't control the infrastructure that requires me to drive a car.

The speed of light is fast, like stupid fast.

Some napkin math puts the travel time from Denver to DC at 1/100 of a second which for a human should be unnoticeable.

I doubt you could tell the difference between two watches with that difference.

The original question was why solar systems and galaxies are in planes, and your explanation is wrong.

What do you even mean by similar orbits? Most orbits are circular for a totally different reason, and that is tidal interactions.

I hate to be that guy, but this is wrong.

The solar system is mostly in one plane because it formed from a cloud of gas. The cloud of a gas has some total non zero rotation and as the cloud collapses interactions flatten the cloud into a disk, where all of the planets formed.

This same principle applies to galaxies.

Except that cars are heavy, so multi-level parking is prohibitively expensive.

I honestly though I would get used to it, like the forced 2-2-2 comps which I initially disliked, but I never did. It just made the game feel like too much more like a pure fps. And it not feeling like that was what made it unique.

In my experience all the que times were fine as 2-2-2 even when queued as duo dps

Ehh I disagree, I played consistently ow1 for years and ow2 just wasn't as good.

I mainly missed tank synergies. Without it the game just wasn't the same. The other tank changes were just insane too. And I preferred the full 6v6 experience.

Then they had to go an monetize the shit out of it, when I already paid for the game! The last straw was either paying for new characters or grinding like hell.

No he doesn't have talking points. He just spouts whatever bs gets him the most attention true or not

Well let me clarify a bit why I think they are the worst.

They have the full complexity an an ICE car, with the added difficulties that arise in a full EV

You need to build and design a car that has all of the downsides of ICE cars. Complicated engine, emissions management, fuel, air intakes.

With a lot of the downsides of an ev. Large heavy, expensive batteries.

Meanwhile you get limited upsides. Evs get lower maintenance and transport costs and ICE cars get range.

Plug in hybrids will have harder maintenance than either, while not getting the fully reduced transport costs as it's not as efficient as a full ev.

Here's where traditional hybrids win out, their battery can be really small, correspondingly cheap and more efficient.

Lugging all that extra weight around decreases the efficiency of the vehicle, where for full ev that matters a lot.

When running in full gas mode your lugging around a heavy battery for nothing, and in a full ev mode your lugging around a heavy engine for nothing.

The High-medium range of full gas would be better served by a traditional hybrid, and the low-medium range would be better served for full evs.

I'm sure there is a narrow window for plug in hybrids, but again that is going to be rare and shrinking as evs get better.

While you can't fix stupid, we do have to think about how a product actually gets used vs it's design.

If nobody is plugging their plug in hybrid, then maybe the manufacturer should remind them, even if its only outlet level power.

To me it is also a symbol of overconsumption. Buying a vehicle that will cover 100% of your use cases vs buying for 99% and renting a more suitable option for that 1%.

I do think this argument for me would change if manufacturers took a different approach. If they took something like a traditional hybrid, like a Ford fusion, and stuck a modern battery in and added a simple plug would be great. Then increase the efficiency a bit and maybe someone could get 10 miles of battery from a regular outlet.

Honestly plug in hybrids are the worst of both worlds.

There was a study recently from Europe that found the vast majority of people with plug in hybrids hardly every plugged them in, and drove them like normal cars. That defeats the entire point of a plug in hybrid, and now you are carrying a heavy battery everywhere that you are not fully using. Which makes the car less efficient than a normal hybrid!

I don't see why we can't go after both at once.

Fix zoning issues and work on reducing car weights

Try thinking about the math a little differently. Instead using a by mile approach I get a similar result.

1. Average American drives 15,000 miles/year
2. Over 60 years, that's 900,000 miles total
3. Using a death rate of 1.33 per 100 million miles:
4. So for 900,000 miles: (1.33 / 100,000,000) * 900,000 = 0.01197
5. Convert to percentage: 0.01197 * 100 = 1.197%
6. 1/75 is about 1.3% which is not far from my guess.

Imo your best bet is to see if you can find someone else's used gaming computer.

Roughly ~400$ gets you pretty far for hardware 3-5 years old

The energy efficiency will be much worse, so depending on how much you use it you may want to account for that and get slightly newer.

In my personal experience look start in amd's Am4 platform, as it's quite upgradable up to a 5800x3d.

But to start something like a 2700x or 3700x are solid cpus.

Equivalent Intel cpus are an option too.

As for gpus look for 1000s series nvidia 1070-1080 and onwards. Less than might be too weak.

Similar for amd. Vega 56/64, 5700xt etc.

Huh the 1080ti came out 7 years ago, so I was a bit off.