Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Really impressive custom build -
Small talk & Chit chat
- Thread starter Wraith
- Start date
Dark NighT
New member
This was a pleasure to watch, this video was such high quality and this pc is a piece of art.
AlienALX
Well-known member
I watched that last night. Do like a bit of DIY Perks....
Hats off for being the first person I've ever seen to use a double glazed sealed unit lmao. I bet that whole thing weighs a ton !
It's so so the rest. Don't like the use of gloss AT ALL it looks bad up close. I would have used Satin inside myself. So much nicer (gloss is kinda tacky). Overall though it's cool.
Someone needs to tell him he needs a bigger monitor though, that does look a bit daft.
Hats off for being the first person I've ever seen to use a double glazed sealed unit lmao. I bet that whole thing weighs a ton !
It's so so the rest. Don't like the use of gloss AT ALL it looks bad up close. I would have used Satin inside myself. So much nicer (gloss is kinda tacky). Overall though it's cool.
Someone needs to tell him he needs a bigger monitor though, that does look a bit daft.
While I love that guy's creativity, I wonder what the long-term implications (if any) there are on that thing being sealed. There's no airflow whatsoever, so no ambient cooling on anything that isn't under water. Not sure if that would be an issue or not. Love the idea of sealing the entire thing though (because dust free).
Fortunately you don't need airflow to dissipate heat, if the air inside the case is warmer than their air outside you'll get natural dissipation through the glass and other conductive materials, with dissipation rate increasing as the temperature delta rises, so all the little passive components should be fine since it'd be such a steady rise.
AlienALX
Well-known member
The SSD and chipset are going to be the only real source of heat. What effect that will have? no idea. I am not a thermal scientist but I know NVME SSDs get quite hot and he didn't even bother to stick a heatsink on it.
What he should have done was added that and the chipset to the loop. The SSD would be easy (Aqua Computer do a card with a block on) and the chipset? just as easy. Just like he made that block for the fets.
Had he done that? then yeah, there wouldn't really be any internal source of real heat. It would all be carried out into the external rads.
Excellent, thanks for the 'engineer' answer.
I really love the idea of this desk, as it's a perfect solution for a PC in a smaller room.
Greenback
Active member
Just saw some new Bitspower blocks and I am in love
simple and stylish just how I like it.
All you need is the rampage MB to go with it, but it does look nice
Dice in all seriousness, even ignoring its direct use by people like Anders Breivik and the Christchurch shooter within their manifestos to attempt to explain and justify their actions, the Board of Deputies of British Jews amongst many other organisations considers that term you're using anti-semitic due to its origins:
Last edited:
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Considering my family comes from a Jewish background, Sephardic to be precise, I'm hardly going to be anti Semitic to myself now am I ? If something stinks I'm going to point it out, Pointing out that Karl Marx was a nutjob is pointing out that HE and the ideology he spawned are both nuts, It's not an attack on a whole ethnicity.
I also call a lot of people who happen to be Christian nuts, That doesn't mean I have anything against Christians
Having a semitic genetic background as we both do doesn't necessarily mean we don't subconsciously perpetuate anti-semitic tropes in our choice of language. But Marxism and the phrase Cultural Marxism are very different things with very different associations in modern culture and it's hard to relate the modern concept of "Cultural Marxism"(Or political correctness) to anything Marx actually wrote or any ideals he forwarded and callous use of this loaded phrase risks normalisation of the often anti-semitic theories and the violent hatred that has become associated with it. I get a lot of people use it because it sounds like a vaguely academic way of describing excessive political correctness but there's much less controversial ways to say that that don't have their origins in genuinely dangerous "theories".
In response to the other post I do agree that the state of teaching at school and sixth forms levels, where teachers simply regurgitate information as provided sometimes at fear of prosecution if they deviate, is toxic, but it's also a very widespread issue with little relevance or exclusivity to left or right wing politics.
I do think to imply that this approach is maintained up into academia is wrong though, many academics relish the chance to argue and debate with those who disagree with them as they're the reason their jobs exist and likely the reason they enjoy their jobs, and deplatforming has little to do with who or how or what things are taught, and much more to do with students wanting to make poltical statements(It's something done by student unions, not the universities themselves), not that I agree with deplatforming but it's a totally different issue imo.
In response to the other post I do agree that the state of teaching at school and sixth forms levels, where teachers simply regurgitate information as provided sometimes at fear of prosecution if they deviate, is toxic, but it's also a very widespread issue with little relevance or exclusivity to left or right wing politics.
I do think to imply that this approach is maintained up into academia is wrong though, many academics relish the chance to argue and debate with those who disagree with them as they're the reason their jobs exist and likely the reason they enjoy their jobs, and deplatforming has little to do with who or how or what things are taught, and much more to do with students wanting to make poltical statements(It's something done by student unions, not the universities themselves), not that I agree with deplatforming but it's a totally different issue imo.
Last edited:
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
The problem is that a lot of people from our background that are in positions of power like to silence anyone, Whether that's legally or just a small threat, That has genuine criticisms of various actions or opposing opinions which is dangerous no matter which way you look at it.
I don't know about you but I for one do not want to see another Hitler but this constant silencing and even disappearing of people i.e Deplatforming etc.... with different opinions is a sure fire way to create someone else like him that will rise to power, You only need look at the slow but steady rise of the far right all throughout Europe, They are a symptom of this type of behaviour, All throughout history extreme situations have created extreme answers and the modern day is no different which is one reason why my near future plans include getting the hell out of Europe.
Last edited:
I don't personally think deplatforming is silencing in this day and age, thanks to the internet more or less everyone has a platform, even now some privately owned companies(Twitter, Facebook, ect) choose not to have certain controversial figures on their own platforms, anyone is free to make their own website where they can which is what Jordan Peterson and co are doing, so anyone who wants to listen to these people are freely available to, deplatforming is mostly used as a way for disgruntled students to send a message that they find certain peoples ideals inherently hostile towards them and wish to offensively snub them in a way that sends a message, as these events at SU's are mostly just preaching prescribed materials and often only attended by existing supporters of the speakers, and rarely allow any actual debate to take place or really introduce anyone to new ideas or concepts.
But I also don't think this is the right way to send a message anyway, since as you say it often just fuels more extreme ideology further as it buries the discourse further underground and leads people to view themselves as ostracised or oppressed victims which is often the subconscious mechanism that lends to internal justification of violent reaction to a non-violent but undoubtedly offensive and not at all constructive snub.
But I also don't think this is the right way to send a message anyway, since as you say it often just fuels more extreme ideology further as it buries the discourse further underground and leads people to view themselves as ostracised or oppressed victims which is often the subconscious mechanism that lends to internal justification of violent reaction to a non-violent but undoubtedly offensive and not at all constructive snub.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
This is not entirely true. You don't have your own platform. No matter the internet or not. Whatever you publish on or start you own, you still are at the mercy of the tech companies who run it. Google doesn't like you? Boom you basically will never succeed. They will completely remove you from searches outside of knowing the exact URL. But nobody will know about it since in the first place you just get removed.
Post on Twitter, they don't like you, same story. Banned forever. It goes on and on.
The censorship and worldwide government spying in the past decade is just snowballing into an orwellian society and the left keeps pushing for more government power(ie socialism) is just speeding it up and the people don't even realize it. Whether left or right views, it's fact not opinion and everybody should be worried.
Last edited:
Even things like thepiratebay or illicit online drug/guns/ect stores are still essentially trivial to access after years of bans, regardless of what hoops have to be jumped through it's hard to say anyone is really restricted from accessing anything on the internet.
Government spying is a centuries old problem that has been an issue long before we had established concepts of capitalism or socialism, we just find out about it more now. It's the tech companies have freedom to create this Orwellian society because of lack of regulation, taxing, or restriction and this is the inevitable result of the unregulated capitalist societies where private companies have the overwhelming influence on a small group of politicians have taken to the storage and transfer of user information. It's why in Europe we have things like the GDPR that has handed back some degree of control to individuals over their personal data from the private companies and I'm not sure the American laissez-faire capitalist approach of not doing anything meaningful to limit tech companies powers or split them up is really going particularly great in comparison, these worldwide problematic companies are all born out of the self declared bastion of capitalism afterall.
Governments having excess power and becoming unaccountable is bad, but individual rich men pulling strings on faceless corporations are far far worse & harder to hold into account as the world is witnessing.
(But the former is not in any way a goal of socialism, socialism is about returning the means of production to the workers from the private companies, and has no strict relation to the necessity or size of a governmental structure, with anarcho-socialists and libertarian-socialists ofc leaning more on self-governing/council & guild based socialist systems respectively, in fact most popular schools of socialism have the end goal of minimal government structures regardless of how they view the path required to get there. IE communism(The end goal of socialism in traditional Marxism) is fundamentally anarchist in its original definition by Marx & Engels
Government spying is a centuries old problem that has been an issue long before we had established concepts of capitalism or socialism, we just find out about it more now. It's the tech companies have freedom to create this Orwellian society because of lack of regulation, taxing, or restriction and this is the inevitable result of the unregulated capitalist societies where private companies have the overwhelming influence on a small group of politicians have taken to the storage and transfer of user information. It's why in Europe we have things like the GDPR that has handed back some degree of control to individuals over their personal data from the private companies and I'm not sure the American laissez-faire capitalist approach of not doing anything meaningful to limit tech companies powers or split them up is really going particularly great in comparison, these worldwide problematic companies are all born out of the self declared bastion of capitalism afterall.
Governments having excess power and becoming unaccountable is bad, but individual rich men pulling strings on faceless corporations are far far worse & harder to hold into account as the world is witnessing.
(But the former is not in any way a goal of socialism, socialism is about returning the means of production to the workers from the private companies, and has no strict relation to the necessity or size of a governmental structure, with anarcho-socialists and libertarian-socialists ofc leaning more on self-governing/council & guild based socialist systems respectively, in fact most popular schools of socialism have the end goal of minimal government structures regardless of how they view the path required to get there. IE communism(The end goal of socialism in traditional Marxism) is fundamentally anarchist in its original definition by Marx & Engels
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
You brush it off and blame capitalism. That doesn't do anything but point blame. You can make whatever agency you want to better see your data, it doesn't change anything on the grounds that they have so much control over all internet traffic and can do whatever the heck they want.
Simply saying piratebay has existed so it's not an issue is completely irrelevant when people aren't doing anything illegal and they are being silenced for different opinions and viewpoints. The fact you even mention that and saying go through all the illegal traffic of the internet just to get your word out proves my point.
Nobody should have to go through piratebay and associated things just to avoid being silenced.
Nothing to do with capitalism. It's the world not doing crap to prevent it because people in power want more power and control.
That's precisely why the left is so strongly supportive of socialism because it's not just socialism where everybody is equal. It's going to be an oligarch socialist society where the people in power are still on top and the government has so much power and control as they do in socialist societies.
Simply saying piratebay has existed so it's not an issue is completely irrelevant when people aren't doing anything illegal and they are being silenced for different opinions and viewpoints. The fact you even mention that and saying go through all the illegal traffic of the internet just to get your word out proves my point.
Nobody should have to go through piratebay and associated things just to avoid being silenced.
Nothing to do with capitalism. It's the world not doing crap to prevent it because people in power want more power and control.
That's precisely why the left is so strongly supportive of socialism because it's not just socialism where everybody is equal. It's going to be an oligarch socialist society where the people in power are still on top and the government has so much power and control as they do in socialist societies.
The people in power are not the politicians though, that's what the media moguls would like you to think. In a capitalist system, the clue is in the name and the fundamental goals of it, the people who really have the power are the people who have the money, they're the people who control the opinions, and the politics, and the lobbyists, and therefore the laws, that just so happens to have rapidly become people like Zuckerberg when it comes to new media, or people like Murdoch with old media.
People don't have to go on the pirate bay to listen to Jordan Peterson or whatever though, they just have to google jordan peterson and go on his own website. Hardly the same, my extreme examples of attempts at banning things on the internet were just that, and they're a million miles more than anything any conservative speaker faces. Not that American capitalist companies restricting people from speaking on their platforms has anything to do with socialism.
People don't have to go on the pirate bay to listen to Jordan Peterson or whatever though, they just have to google jordan peterson and go on his own website. Hardly the same, my extreme examples of attempts at banning things on the internet were just that, and they're a million miles more than anything any conservative speaker faces. Not that American capitalist companies restricting people from speaking on their platforms has anything to do with socialism.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
You realize you contradict yourself right?
Giant tech companies pay politicians. Whether by money or by pushing their views over others with a different opinion.
That has everything to do with socialism. The giant tech companies fund the left. The left wants socialism. It goes hand in hand and that's precisely why socialism in the western society has become a more vocal talking point. Because the people who control the data we see are pushing the lefts agenda. Because they will keep the giant tech companies power and not regulate it so they can continue to do with whatever they want.
Giant tech companies pay politicians. Whether by money or by pushing their views over others with a different opinion.
That has everything to do with socialism. The giant tech companies fund the left. The left wants socialism. It goes hand in hand and that's precisely why socialism in the western society has become a more vocal talking point. Because the people who control the data we see are pushing the lefts agenda. Because they will keep the giant tech companies power and not regulate it so they can continue to do with whatever they want.
