Jump to content

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

The number of assigned tasks it is measuring: One. The update. As a sum total. The particular sub-tasks are not relevant to most users.

That is simultaneously interesting information,  and utterly useless.

Not all information is functional when taken out of its context.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, actually, a message like the one occasional gets -- "This may take some time" -- would be more informative, even if it is sometimes inaccurate.

I'd call that less informative. Saying something may "take some time" without some measurement whatsoever is infuriating.

I'll take the general measurement of the primary task over that any day.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

I'd call that less informative. Saying something may "take some time" without some measurement whatsoever is infuriating.

I'll take the general measurement of the primary task over that any day.

Providing "precise" information using numerical measures, when the numbers themselves measure something unknowable, isn't actually being "precise" or informative. The phone might just as well have literally thrown out random numbers in a progression from 1 to 100, and it would have meant as much to me -- and reflected as accurately my actual experience of the update.

"How is your day going?"
"32"

But, ok. We all have preferences, and I can accept that you prefer this over that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Providing "precise" information using numerical measures, when the numbers themselves measure something unknowable, isn't actually being "precise" or informative. The phone might just as well have literally thrown out random numbers in a progression from 1 to 100, and it would have meant as much to me -- and reflected as accurately my actual experience of the update.

"How is your day going?"
"32"

But, ok. We all have preferences, and I can accept that you prefer this over that.

Yeah, that's not at all what it is doing. Meh.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I missed that! Only saw one profile picture change yesterday in protest, too.

Seicher doesn't actually, really "poof" with a flounce gif.
Seicher, if she poofs, does so quietly.

(I won't swear to 'never' since 2010, not having flounced, but I don't think it was ever with a gif.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

Seicher doesn't actually, really "poof" with a flounce gif.
Seicher, if she poofs, does so quietly.

(I won't swear to 'never' since 2010, not having flounced, but I don't think it was ever with a gif.)

Yet, here ya are, Blanche!

Here ya are!

(Sorry, couldn't resist! Mangled quote from, "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?". )

Glad to see you didn't actually Flounce!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Yet, here ya are, Blanche!

Here ya are!

(Sorry, couldn't resist! Mangled quote from, "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?". )

Glad to see you didn't actually Flounce!

More like Michael Corleone: Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2022 at 9:16 PM, Lindal Kidd said:

While you are all peeved about kink, and scripts, and Seicher is busy flouncing, I am peeved with one of the following:

  • YouTube
  • My ISP
  • the Internet in general
  • my PC

For the last four days or so, it's been nearly impossible to play YouTube videos. They start to play, then drop to the lowest quality and start buffering. Or, more likely, YouTube waits for 30 seconds and then claims I'm offline (I'm not).

  • Other computers on the network don't have the problem.
  • I thought it was my router, which did in fact die during a tech support call. But a replacement has not fixed the problem.
  • All browsers on my PC have the problem (Firefox, Google Chromium, Edge).
  • Switching Google accounts, or browsing YouTube without signing in at all, makes no difference.
  • I've tried clearing browser history, cache, and cookies. Nope.
  • I've tried changing public DNS servers. Nope.
  • I've tried the command line suggestions in several help videos, suggesting a flush of the DNS cache and winsock. Nope.
  • Other websites appear to operate all right...mostly. Sometimes their response seems unusually slow.
  • Speedtests have been inconclusive. My ISP's speedtest says everything is super great. Speedtest.net gives widely varying results depending on the server chosen, but I notice that many servers give me a near-zero UPload speed. But not all.
  • Other video streaming services (Prime Video) work all right.
  • I've tried scanning for viruses and malware (Windows Defender, Avast, and Malwarebytes.) Nope.
  • I've tried a PC tuneup utility (CCleaner, and yes I know some hate it, but it's never hurt me. It suggested I update some drivers, but didn't fix the problem).
  • I read somewhere that an ad blocker can cause this, and I vaguely remember installing one, but not recently...and when I looked, I couldn't find one in my browsers' extensions or my program files.
  • I thought maybe OneDrive might be eating all my resources, since I had just recently re-enabled it for another application, but disabling it again did not help.

I'm out of ideas, the Resident Geek is out of ideas, and we are suffering from Cute Cat Video withdrawal.

 

CPU fan could be dying or even the graphics card fan(s). Keep an eye on the CPU and GPU temps, especially doing something "graphics heavy". If either one is running hot*, it's probably because the fan(s) isn't/aren't spinning quite as fast as they used to.

 

*above what is considered normal usage for that CPU or card for the job it's doing. The 1050s/1060s aren't cutting it anymore. They're getting old.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Silent!

The problem is definitely down to the PC, no further doubt. We solved most of the problem when the Geek remembered he'd followed some YouTube video advice for optimizing the Nvidia drivers for Microsoft Flight Simulator. When he reinstalled the driver with no tweaks, things cleared up!

For a while.

Now the "You're offline" message is popping up again.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peeve: Being unable to NOT think about..

In "Real Life" teleporters, they would "disintegrate" you, then create a whole new "you" at the destination!

Do Second Life teleporters work the same?

Is this why the "Portal Park" teleporters have issues? They can't teleport you, if they can't "disintegrate" you - otherwise there would be two of you!

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Peeve: Being unable to NOT think about..

In "Real Life" teleporters, they would "disintegrate" you, then create a whole new "you" at the destination!

Do Second Life teleporters work the same?

Is this why the "Portal Park" teleporters have issues? They can't teleport you, if they can't "disintegrate" you - otherwise there would be two of you!

 

 

I would love to keep my body intact, and not have my body ripped from the molecular level. Only to be transferred digitally to the other location. I feel like there is some moral issues here. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

If it can put me back together minus a bit of age accumulated fat, a few wrinkles, some stretch marks... I think I'd be ok with that.

 

🤐

I mean with how Michio Kaku explained it, I would be scared poopless to even try that out. I mean we are talking about ripping apart your body at a molecular level, and then turning those molecules into data that would be sent however many miles away. Then a machine would have to take that data turn it back into molecules and figure out how you were put together. That sounds scary, especially if there is a malfunction. Then you may have an arm where your head was. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I mean with how Michio Kaku explained it, I would be scared poopless to even try that out. I mean we are talking about ripping apart your body at a molecular level, and then turning those molecules into data that would be sent however many miles away. Then a machine would have to take that data turn it back into molecules and figure out how you were put together. That sounds scary, especially if there is a malfunction. Then you may have an arm where your head was. 

Yeah. Not so much that even, as the "This will kill you, disassemble you, and then reassemble a simulacrum of you that isn't actually you at all somewhere else" thing that gets me.

As I understand it, contemporary experiments in teleportation (there have been some!) don't even reassemble the original with the same atoms: they produce a duplicate of the original at the new site.

I feel about it much as I feel about the transhumanist "dream" of storing one's mind in a computer. Even assuming that one could transfer all the data from my mind into a hard drive somewhere, what makes you think that it would transfer my consciousness, the "me" that is aware of myself? Thought experiment: suppose they transferred multiple copies of your mind onto multiple hard drives. Which would be "you"? All of them, simultaneously? Or none of them? Such copies might have their own consciousness: they might even believe they were were "me." But they wouldn't be.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I mean with how Michio Kaku explained it, I would be scared poopless to even try that out. I mean we are talking about ripping apart your body at a molecular level, and then turning those molecules into data that would be sent however many miles away. Then a machine would have to take that data turn it back into molecules and figure out how you were put together. That sounds scary, especially if there is a malfunction. Then you may have an arm where your head was. 

bd5bb607-787b-4510-95a9-0c52c40204af_tex

 

ed107efe7d8564841c6c1b4386aad6d2.jpg

 

🤐

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...