• 0 Posts
  • 286 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle


  • Underclocking your CPU like crazy because you don’t want to replace the thermal paste is an insane thing to do, and probably still won’t help, as the thermal paste being gone means there’s nowhere for the heat to go. It’ll just build and build until you hit a spike; you’ll just reach that spike slower. You’re rapidly sacrificing your parts by not just opening it up, cleaning out the dust and replacing the thermal paste, even using some kind of heat-reduction work around.

    85 degrees is high but normal for a component that is pushing it, so software solutions, like underclocking, are viable. 100 degrees is “most computers will turn off to protect the components” territory, suggesting something has gone wrong with your cooling solutions and it really needs to be opened up.

    But, that’s not the question you asked, just a word of warning I felt compelled to add. Depending on the processor and motherboard, there are BIOS solutions and in-OS solutions. Check your mobo for settings in advanced. If they’re there, they’re there. If you’re using an old Ryzen, (I believe the 1000 series is 8 years old now?) there’s an app called AMD Ryzen Master that lets you tweak CPU speeds and voltages. Realistically Google “[CPU name] underclock” and you’ll find a guide that links you to software, if it is available for your processor. I’ve never heard of a catch-all third party software solution for CPU clocking, the way Afterburner does that for GPU.




  • Now that I’ve discovered the rest of the article beyond the wall of ads, I agree. I had partial information, and wrongly believed it was all the information, as the blob of ads on my mobile device was a whole screen. That, combined with being on the way out the door in the morning, led me to believe I had read everything and everyone in this thread is insane. Thenn, someone made a specific reference to something I hadn’t read and I was prompted to go look, discovering there is much more article beyond our corporate sponsored break.

    I legit thought they scared a dude with a rifle into fleeing, and then shot at him instead of letting him get away.


  • The dude with the rifle was running. That whole argument is fine when someone is draw weapons and making threats, but they shot at someone trying to flee the scene after causing no harm and killed an innocent. Everything else is imaginary justification.

    EDIT: Wondering where the hell everyone else got so much more information, I reloaded the article, scrolled past the ad wall and found the rest of the text, which makes clear that the dude with the rifle pulled his gun into a firing position on the crowd. Fair enough, I was wrong and the citizen was right to have taken the shot. I blame the ad wall for convincing me that the news article was over.



  • Exactly. The level of cultural brainwashing in this thread is insane. You don’t just let any random volunteer perform jobs like this.

    Volunteers were told not to carry a weapon because of outcomes like this. They’re not trained professionals, and they’re definitely not action heroes. And now someone has to explain to a child, a parent, a partner, etc., that the civillian death here was just an unfortunate outcome of a wonderful American citizen protecting his country. It’s actually fucking despicible.


  • But what else could we have done?

    What I want done is to create strong gun legislation instead of encouraging citizens to play action hero and see the civilian shot in the crossfire as an unfortunate but unpreventable casualty.

    EDIT - I’m addressing everyone’s comments here rather than copy-pasting the same response to everyone. I had only read the first section of the article, having been fooled by the wall of ads on mobile into believing that the first five paragraphs was the whole article. Without the additional explination and context in the remaining article I had believed that, when approached by volunteer security, the man with the rifle had attempted to flee, and the securities’ response was to gun him down, and an innocent caught a stray. It was insane to me that people thought to defend that, but as people pointed out that the rifleman was running towards a crowd with the rifle in a firing position, I was wondering how the hell people got that from the 5 paragraphs. I reloaded the article, scrolled past a full screen of advertising, and discovered there was a lot more depth provided in the article than I had realized. With a rifle aimed at civilians, the security volunteer was right to take the shot, because the intent for harm was clear.

    I stand by this being a systematic issue that needs solving at the root, but in the moment the security volunteer handled the situation correctly.



  • “A person believed to be part of a peace keeping team” and “people running security” are not the same thing. At a glance this looks like the “good guy with a gun” mythos that pro-gun advocates keep spreading cost an innocent person their life.

    If this is professional security who fucked up, sure, there’s a discussion to be had. If this is a volunteer peacekeeper who showed up strapped, he is part of the problem, not the solution.


  • No, I am responding based on the whole article.

    What the fuck does “believed to be” mean in this sentence? Why do we not know? Were they hired protection? Are they a trained professional? Or are they an idiot with a gun who thinks they’re an action hero?

    The article is very unclear on this front.

    EDIT: Ha, no I wasn’t. Ad space is pervasive, and I had believed I had read the whole article when I had only read like a fifth of it.


  • Wait, so, trying to follow this: someone pulled a rifle on protestors, so a “concerned citizen” pulled a gun on that person, shot, missed, killed a bystander, and then shot again? Am I following this right? And the person being held accountable for the death is the guy who initially pulled the rifle, not the random citizen firing a weapon into a crowd?

    Is this that “American exceptionalism” I keep hearing about?

    EDIT - Nevermind, there’s a lot more detail after the wall of ads that convinced me the article was done.



  • While you are overreacting to the accident itself, driving is not for everyone. I strongly disagree with driving being a basic skill everyone should have. This is some North American cultural mythos created to help further push the responsibility of building decent public transit off of our lawmakers and governments.

    Driving is a challenging thing to do correctly, and a not small number of people have no idea how to do it, but are on the roads anyway. While I believe you should take an accident like that with a growth mindset, the clear truth is you’ve never felt comfortable behind the wheel, and your skill set doesn’t seem to be built for that. If it’s important to you, I suspect you’d be capable of overcoming the unique challenges it presents to you, but it’s not. There are ways to live without being a driver, and things you can provide to others in exchange for them being the drivers in your life, and imo, that is fine.

    Don’t quit driving because you had an accident. Decide if being able to drive matters to you, and decide how you want to live.