Not being as happy and being unhappy are not the same.
Regardless, you should read Robert Putnam's essay, E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century (2007). He makes it clear that social trust goes down because of it.
Because the culture that's moving in is intolerant of my way of life and wants to piecemeal eradicate it by using the government to incrementally make every bit of the way I live harder, more expensive or subject to capricious enforcement if not outright illegal.
I thought I would be able to get in a good 20-40yr settling down where I did and would only be complaining about this stuff when I was old. It's been about 10 and it's all going to shit.
And yes, I am intentionally not being specific and leaving room for assumption.
> And yes, I am intentionally not being specific and leaving room for assumption.
One thing I've consistently noticed about these kinds of conversations is that people want to be allowed to share racist opinions without suffering the social consequences of sharing racist opinions, but in order to do so they have to hide their true values by masking their language and not actually say anything that has any meaning.
I have nothing in my value system I'm ashamed of, I'll say any aspect of it in any company at all. Is it hard not having a value system like that?
Lol, and that's exactly why I worded it the way I did.
As far are I'm concerned the "wrong kind of people" are the ones with no real problems and a propensity to make ones by gettin involved in other people's business. The fact that those people are mostly white is just random luck of how history turned out.
They show up, they get to screeching in the town hall meetings and before you know it the flock cameras go up, code enforcement is prowling around with a drone, Starbucks replaces the Popeyes, half the businesses you patronize sell out to developers of bougie stuff you don't want, everything costs more, etc, etc.
I'm sure the city wins on paper, it's replacing it's existing people with richer ones. And I'm sure the people who sell stuff to these richer people win, but everyone who was here first loses. We just wanted to pay low rents, drink beer on our front porches and let our kids ride dirtbikes in the street and generally live our lives.
I chose this city specifically because the kind of people I didn't want anything to do with said it sucked so much "my dad dealt crack in the 90s and that's where he'd meet his supplier" and all that, and it was so far away from where they usually like to settle. But with what happened to land values, rents, etc. after 2020 pushed a lot of them out here.
This is so bizarre, your initial comment comes off like the typical "crime is because diversity" people, but it sounds like you have some kind of class conscious issue with affordability?
I think we're talking about 2 different things. I'm not sure where Roblox fits into what I said.
The problem I describe is companies pushing towards the "rent" model vs. "buy to own". Nvidia was just an example by virtue of their size. Microsoft could be another, they're also eying the game streaming market. Once enough buyers become renters, the buying market shrinks and becomes untenable for the rest, pushing more people to rent.
GPUs are so expensive now that many gamers were eying GeForce Now as a viable long term solution for gaming. Just recently there was a discussion on HN about GeForce Now where a lot of comments were "I can pay for 10 years of GeForce Now with the price of a 5090, and that's before counting electricity". All upsides, right?
In parallel Nvidia is probably seeing more money in the datacenter market so would rather focus the available production capacity there. Once enough gamers move away from local compute, the demand is unlikely to come back so future generations of GPUs would get more and more expensive to cater for an ever shrinking market. This is the vicious cycle. Expensive GPU + cheap cloud gaming > shrinking GPU market and higher GPU prices > more of step 1.
Roblox is one example of a game, there are many popular games that aren't graphics intensive or don't rely on eye candy. But what about all the other games that require beefy GPU to run? Gamers will want to play them, and Nvidia like most other companies sees more value in recurring revenue than in one time sales. A GPU you own won't bring Nvidia money later, a subscription keeps doing that.
The price hikes come only after there's no real alternative to renting. Look at the video streaming industry.
I'm saying that younger generations don't seem to care about realism as much as they care about having fun creating and sharing things with their friends. A large proportion of younger gamers play Roblox and Minecraft. Will they grow up and start playing more GPU-heavy games, or will they continue to play where their friends are?
Being free is exactly what has made those platforms as well as mobile games so popular. Are they going to start paying for subscriptions?
I love it when I get my Robloxhead daughter to test drive some of the games I play on my 5090 box. "Ooooh these graphics are unreal" "Can we stop for just a moment and admire this grass" :-D
Yeah, this gamer conspiracy theory never made sense to me.
Also, if gamers demand infinitely improving graphics so much that they would rather pay for cloud gaming than relax their expectations and be happy with, say, current gen graphics, then that is more a claim about modern self-pwned gamer behavior than megacorp conspiracy.
But I don't buy that either. The biggest games on Steam Charts and Twitch aren't AAA RTX 5090 games.
It's like learning to read English after speaking fluently for a few years. You may only need the letter sounds and then you can guess the rest. Learning Chinese works that way. You learn some basic characters and then you can guess the rest. (Learning to write without a computer is definitely more of a challenge though.)
I don't necessarily disagree, but researchers are not required to be good communicators. An academic can lead their field and be a terrible lecturer. A specialist can let a generalist help explain concepts for them.
They should still review the final result though. There is no excuse for not doing that.
I disagree here. A good researcher has to be a good communicator. I am not saying that it is necessarily the case that you don't understand the topic if you cannot explain it well enough to someone new, but it is essential to communicate to have a good exchange of ideas with others, and consequently, become a better researcher. This is one of the skills you learn in a PhD program.
what you are actually saying is that a certain class of people "know better" than what another class thinks they want.
If you look at financial markets and finance theory, there is no validity to the idea that people are long term blind and short term mistaken. markets discount the future, they are the best estimates of the future rather than somebody with no skin in the game magically "knowing better"
its plausible for companies to be worth less than their assets. While it might be the best estimate its still not necessarily the best one. aka the market can stay crazy longer than you can stay solvent. Markets measure confidence as much as they measure value.
