legend

My PC is connected to my TV.

2 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

QLED is poop even with VRR. So not the best gaming TV.

How so? And FWIW, my understanding from reviews is this newest release is significantly better than last years QLED.

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

 

Don’t own an OLED, do you?

 

Anyways, Legend, it’s a fine TV. One of my buddies has one so I’ve been able to see it in a real world setting.

 

Still wouldn’t personally buy a non-OLED set ever again, but it’s a solid TV.

Any particular reason you would still prefer OLED?

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

The entire site is slower over the weekend.

 

If we're a couple of days into the week and you still haven't gotten a lot of feedback, ping me and I'll move it to GG for you.

 

 

As for the TV, hasn't HDR not settled on a universal standard yet? I'd personally be reluctant to buy a new TV until that happens, especially a $3,000 TV.

I was a bit concerned too, but I did some googling. First, it sounds like everyone supports a baseline version of HDR, that being HDR10. HDR10+ is indeed in competition with Dolby Vision, but it sounds like HDR10+ might be better and stands a good chance of winning.

I'm basing that off this site and some others, so it's possible I'm being naive.

https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/what-is-hdr10-3294683

So while I suppose its possible HDR10+ might not win, based on that info that doesn't mean you can't get HDR content at all even if Dolby wins. If one wants to wait things out, it may be a while, and I was planning on next year being the longest I'd wait regardless. My 08/09 (can't remember which year) Panny Plasma has had a damn fine run though!

For my apartment 65" is actually pushing it on being too big  

3k is a lot though. I was thinking I'd probably hold out till the 2019 model but I might cave if this looks like a future proof slam dunk. 

Really? No comments at all?  Should I have posted this GG?

I was pretty confident that the next TV I bought would be an LG OLED, but I just ran across this promotional material for the Samsung Q9F series:

https://www.samsung.com/us/explore/qled-tv/gaming-tv/?cid=smp-mktg-stc-tv-07182018-122317

Highlights (also from search googling):

• Freesync VRR
• 20ms input lag
• No burn in or image retention
• Only modestly worse black levels than OLED
• Much brighter than OLED
• HDR10+

That's a pretty damn compelling counter point to an LG OLED for a gamer. From what I can tell, it only slightly loses on black level. Are there other reasons to still consider an LG OLED though? Do you guys think that LG OLEDs next year would be able to make up the gap and surpass for gaming?

Regarding the VRR, I understand that the HDMI standard for VRR may be different than FreeSync, but would it be safe to conclude that whatever it is would be something that could be patched into firmware for a display that supports Freesync?

I couldn't get through it. They both were like this:

How is this country this fucking broken? What the fuck is wrong with this place!?

Everyday day brings another piece of insanity. We're governed by absolute morons put in power by absolute morons.

11 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

Not OK enough to skip Guardians 3?

Is he not under contract?

I think it's weird to be either anti or pro gamer. 

It's too bad there wasn't an armed teacher at the convenience store, or maybe a really capable 4 year old.

Seriously though, I really feel for the kids of that father. First their schoolmates, and then their father  

There is a Mexican/Bagel shop in Providence and they make a mean breakfast burrito. Now I want that.

Often times, things I didn't want to know about Trump.

More positively, I've developed a new approach for online learning of visual representation and memory encoding that is aimed at being much more sample efficient for use on a robot. Technically, I've been developing this idea over the past few days.

Still needs testing. We'll see how it goes.

5 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

One can hope this finally kills his not obvious attempt to run for office

Because America won't elect insufferable morons?

If someone thinks you can't get a good bagel outside NYC then they're simply insane.

NYC Pizza at least has a more clear style to it. So while I might not agree with the same idea there, it's at least not completely insane.

53 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

Thank you! I understand it better with that explanation.

To be honest, it's not a well written paper, so don't beat yourself up too much  A lot of work seems more complex than it is, because a lot of computer scientists are awful writers. I don't consider myself "great" at it either, but I do continue to improve.

Quote

I was wondering have you heard anything about how they were supposed to use a new binary code to increase processing? Seems like all the articles I can find are old. It was where they could use 1,0 and -1 by using a possitve, negative and no charge? I could be remembering that wrong.

38 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17575-ditching-binary-will-make-quantum-computers-more-powerful/

Found this from 9 years ago

 

When you first learn about binary systems, you learn that mathematically, there is nothing special about binary, nor even decimal which is what you tend to be used to. Mathematically, they're all equivalent. So the possibility of using other systems is always conceivable. But physically, there isn't really much reason to do that. Computer hardware tends to be easiest to design with an underlying binary system (charge, or no charge).

The article you posted seems to be suggesting that for quantum computers, it may be better to do otherwise; that using a different base will be better for that kind of machinery. Seems entirely plausible, but you probably haven't heard much more because quantum computers are progressing very slowly. If we get useful quantum computers in the next five years (meaning, we would actually benefit from using them to do something) I think we'll be doing well. But that should illustrate how early the field still is.

33 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

From the abstract:

So this is much faster at finding a much worse result. I imagine there are some very good uses for this algorithm, and I can see its output being used as a starting point. However, for a lot of problems, the computing power required really isn't a big deal.

Optimization problems tend to be incredibly hard to solve exactly except for very specific classes of algorithms. All of "deep learning" is one big optimization problem and even with all the compute available that people use on it, it's no where remotely near to being able to ensure an optimal answer. Worse still, the answer deep learning gives doesn't even have any approximation bound guarantees!

In this case though, the solution they propose is for a fairly specific class of optimization problems and even then, the conventional algorithm for this class still does pretty well. It's not going to take the world by storm  

38 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

I wasn't sure but wouldn't this program have a chance at eliminating the correct answer? I'm probably just completely misunderstanding it.

It's a method for optimizing a specific class of objective functions. Roughly, if I give you a set of items, the objective function scores how good that set is, and what we want to do is find the set that maximizes the score it will give. The method also assumes certain properties about how that objective function works (If those properties are not held, it's unclear whether it will work well at all). It's a sampling based approach so there is no guarantee it will actually find the input that maximizes the objective at all. But it has a pretty good chance of giving an input that scores pretty highly and the only reason to use such an algorithm is when computing with certainty the exact optimal answer to such a problem requires far too much compute.

I'm more optimistic than I was from the teaser. 

4 minutes ago, Wild said:

Looks like a boilerplate, sugar coated biopic. Might stream it one day.

You're not wrong, but I love Queen and will probably be a sucker anyway.

Jupiter is just gaming the welfare system.

My motivation to buy a PS4 is increasing.

This work isn't nearly as general as the Science News article makes it sound. That and most of the contributions are theoretical analyses. That's not to shit on theoretical analysis (it's incredibly important to advancing what we do), but this is not some magic wand by any means.

*If* Valve comes out with a bunch of games (the fabled "3" set of games) showing that VR can be used for amazing games, all will be forgiven.  

Might be time to get it.

15 minutes ago, elbobo said:

 

They don't raise the prices to match the tariff priced goods but they do raise them. Lets say 100lbs of tariffed fish costs $150 from the US, country B was selling at $130 now they can raise their price to $145 and make more money while still undercut the tariffed goods. 

  

Tariffs are often a huge win for countries not directly involved with them

That could indeed make sense to me, but then the way the article was phrased seemed like they were saying that whatever raise in price it will be from competitors, it will cause the market to shrink in a counterproductive way in which no one wins. But then why would competitors raise the price that much? They should only raise it to the extent that they're still getting a win, because they're not under any external pressure to raise at all, just the US.

But I may have just badly misread what the article was trying to say.