Vanman04 t1_j92rbpl wrote

LOL riding dick?

Zuck is a scumbag and I desperately do not want him to control VR.

I am however not foolish enough to think it will never be popular or useful. The only thing really holding it back right now is the hardware. Those issues will be solved.

I was using the internet long before the general public came on board. I remember all the folks saying back then exactly what you are saying now. No one wants it blah blah it's just for nerds blah blah.

This is the same thing all over. Sure no one wants it now while it is cumbersome and difficult to get a decent experience but those issues will be solved eventually. Just like they were with the internet mostly.

People will flock to it the second it becomes comfortable to work with. You are fooling yourself if you think they won't.


Vanman04 t1_j92fsyw wrote

The fact you don't recognize that will all be combined is exactly the lack of vision I am talking about.

Work and play in one space controlled by zuck.

It is going to happen just like the internet happened. It took the internet a while to be accepted by the general public as well but here we are with it now being depended upon by almost everything we do.

People thinking adding 3d visuals to the internet is not going to work are fooling themselves. It is going to happen. Maybe not in the timeframe before zuck runs out of money but it will happen. You can see the potential yourself since you mention AR.

Maybe zuck doesn't have the right approach and someone sneaks in and does it right before him but some company is going to and right now the only one really going hard at it is him.


Vanman04 t1_j9074vj wrote


People lack vision. It will happen. It's just a matter of time. I seriously hope zuck doesn't control it when it does but he might.

The tech will get there. If he is the only one with a backend built.out to support it when it does it is going to be hard for someone else to step in.

I am holding out hope his shareholders put a leash on him or he runs out of money before it works.


Vanman04 t1_j906krr wrote

I think you are right. People are laughing now but as the tech matures I think they will laugh less and less

Vr controlled by zuck is terrifying butt he is laying the foundation when the tech gets to where it works for your average person he is going to have a huge head start.

It's coming eventually regardless of how much people make fun of it now.


Vanman04 t1_j8cl5xq wrote

Well yes and no.

Yes it's an Soc but it is not magic's ddr5 with an apple proprietary connection.

The point remains the memory is not nearly as expensive as what charging for it. It is also a practice they have had since long before the new CPU.

Apple has one of the highest profit margins in the world and it is because they overcharge you for everything.

I would not touch one of these machines with a ten foot pole just because of the proprietary fort nox they have on replacement parts.I mean it is beyond ridiculous at this point. They now have the track pad serialized so you can't replace it without getting the part from them.

That's predatory in my opinion.

Nice machines but apple can go fuck right off.


Vanman04 t1_j8blis4 wrote

The thing is rhe benchmark means nothing.

If the pc plays the game acceptably the bottleneck means nothing beyond they likely overspent on the card.

Chasing numbers is pretty silly. After a cetain point the framerate goes up but it makes virtually no difference in the player experience.

Chasing 120 fps is for people who have nothing better to do with their money. Most of the research suggest a cap of 60 fps for the human eye to register. Some research points to maybe as high as 90 but even then most cards on the market these days can acheive that easily.

it's kind of like buying a gallon of milk when you only drink a glass a week. sure you have more milk but you dont really need it. You would be much better off buying a quart.

Yup bottlenecking is a thing to be sure but again after a certain point that only means you spent too much on the card or you have room to grow in the future assuming the experience you are getting is acceptable.


Vanman04 t1_j2vqu7m wrote

Is it really remission though?

It lowered their A1c but that would be expected in a low carb diet anyway would it not? I agree glycemic index is far more important but eliminating carbs by it's nature is going to eliminate the vast majority of things with a high glycemic index.


Vanman04 t1_j1eagz1 wrote

Seems cost is playing the biggest part.

"Several factors may have contributed to the lack of improvement in glycemic control. First, the rising cost of insulin is likely leading to medication nonadherence.17 Approximately one-third of US adults using insulin report either rationing, dose skipping, or delaying prescription refills to save money.18 Second, only a small proportion of practitioners may be starting or intensifying insulin therapy in a timely manner.19 Third, acceptability of insulin remains low among patients, leading to reluctance to begin or continue using insulin therapy as recommended.20"

It also explains that Mexican Americans are driving a large part of the bad results which again likely points to access to newer tech.

Last but not least this report seems to end right at the beginning of when closed loop systems started to come online. The new tech in insulin pumps is pretty amazing but the cost to use them is pretty insane.

My son is type one. He uses an insulin pump that is connected to a continuous glucose monitor. His pump has the ability to monitor his glucose level and deliver or stop insulin as needed. The results are nothing short of amazing. That said it is expensive as hell.

The pump itself cost 6k with insurance our cost was closer to $300 but then you need supplies for it which run somewhere in the neighborhood of $90 per month. On top of that you need the supplies for the continuous glucose monitor that adds another $90 -160 per months after insurance. Add insulin for another $30 per month after insurance. This is with pretty decent insurance.

Without insurance it becomes completely unworkable unless you are high income. There are a ton of people still using shots and pricking their fingers which causes all kinds of issues with control.

I feel like the title sort of obscures the reality. It's not that the tech is not good enough to improve outcomes it is much more that the barrier to to getting that tech in peoples hands is too high.


Vanman04 t1_j166iip wrote

lots of words but from your own link.

The pooled vaccine effectiveness estimates from the observational studies demonstrated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine reduced symptomatic COVID-19 when compared to no vaccination (pooled vaccine effectiveness: 92.4% (95% CI: 87.5–95.3%), based on 8 studies) [6,10,11,14,17,18,21,31]. The pooled vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization due to COVID-19 was 94.3% (95% CI 87.9–97.3%), based on 8 studies [13,15,17,21,22,25,28,30]. The pooled vaccine effectiveness for prevention of death due to COVID-19 was 96.1% (95%CI 91.5–98.2%), based on 4 studies [13,15,17,25]. The pooled vaccine effectiveness against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 89.3% (95% CI 88.4–90.1%), based on 2 studies [17,24

0.0029% does not appear anywhere in your link so you are pulling that number from god knows where. (I have my suspicions but)

But all of that is really unecessary since you can find the hospitalization numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated.,regardless%20of%20booster%20dose%20status.

In this cross-sectional study of US adults hospitalized with COVID-19 during January 2022 to April 2022 (during Omicron variant predominance), COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates were 10.5 times higher in unvaccinated persons and 2.5 times higher in vaccinated persons with no booster dose, respectively, compared with those who had received a booster dose. Compared with unvaccinated hospitalized persons, vaccinated hospitalized persons were more likely to be older and have more underlying medical conditions.

That all by itself puts the lie to the .0029 % number you pulled from apparently no where.

You need to stop listening to quaks and fox news.

You seem to be one of those follks deparate to ensure you have not been mislead and grasping at anything that can give you comfort in knowing you have done your research and you aren't being played like a fool.

You say you don't want to be a lab rat but you refuse to listen to what the labs and actual data is telling you. you are grasping at folks who are grifting for money coming up with made up numbers like .00029 to make yourself feel better. But all you are really doing is fooling yourself and endangering your health and those around you.

I found a source for your .0029 number and it's wild how wrong your conclusions of it are. This is from the post of all places a paper sympathetic to the right wing lunacy.

The agency looked at 1,228,664 people who were vaccinated between December 2020 and October 2021 …

Of those, 2,256 developed COVID, or 0.1%

Of those, 189 had a serious outcome, or 0.01%

Of those, 36 died, or 0.0029%

Roughly 28 of those who died had four or more comorbidities, including immunosuppression, diabetes, and chronic kidney, cardiac, pulmonary, neurologic and/or liver disease.

In short, if you’re vaccinated, the risk of death, or even hospitalization, from COVID is infinitesimally small. Like being-struck-by-lightning-in-your-lifetime small.

So your .0029 is your chances of dying when you have the booster Pretty freaking impressive really that you came to the exact opposite conclusion that it was just the people saved. Exact opposite of what that number represents it is actually the number it didn't save.

This is why I rarely waste time with folks like you because you think you have done your research but that just means you found folks to confirm your conspiracy nonsense and stopped looking. What's really wild is you know where to look but then refuse to actually read what the studies say.

I wish you luck with your conspiracy theory nonsense and hope that it never bites you in the ass as it has so many r/HermanCainAward


Vanman04 t1_j15gysd wrote

>I'm more of evidence of results guy, not let's argue who's opinion is right.

Nothing wrong with that but you have done nothing but provide a name and opinion. I am not going to waste my time providing links to evidence the vaccines were effective.

You want to show some evidence they weren't and were just to fill contracts feel free to do so but baring that all I am seeing here is opinion not worth wasting time on as it's all been done before thousands of times


Vanman04 t1_j13afh9 wrote

>felt as though it was catered towards a younger audience

My daughter loved it. I suspect the younger viewers are making up a large portion of the numbers. I watched it with my daughter I thought there were some great parts but it was clearly going for the harry potter demo.