I can't figure out why that one is more expensive, the 1500 seems to me the better one at minimum because of more outlets, more output, and it puts out a true sine wave power. I just got a comparable model at Best Buy for about the same price. (Also got a smaller backup to put the modem/router on). Either way, Cyberpower looks to be the best manufacturer to go with, APC has a lot of negative reviews compared to them. I used to have a APC long ago that did fine, but that was then.
Leaning towards the 1500 myself, but I don’t know much about simulated vs pure sine. The 1500 is $170 and the simulated one is $109. Which is a lot, but I don’t want to end up sorry lol. 🤔
Mainly just depends on how sensitive you think your equipment may be to the variations, and of course how often you think you're getting brownouts. Plus a bit more features. For $170 that seems to be a great deal.
Then I'd opt for the better one, because you don't see all brownouts, only the ones that are long enough to affect lights and more sensitive devices. I have one touch light that would go out when everything else would be fine. So you most likely have very "dirty" power, at least in the room you see this going on.
I'll also add that since putting my UPSs in, occasionally I'll have them click. It's not registering as anything on the software monitor, nothing I can see via lights, but I'm sure it's breaker or whatever they use to step in and keep things clean.
They usually aren’t common, but started this year during the summer in SoCal. Likely due to Southern California Edison, but most the locals are peeved. I just want at least some assurance I can have a minute or two, so I can power down.
Mine claims about 25 mins to power down with a resting pull of 240 watts, 15 mins while using GPU for SD or AI stuff (400 watts). The key importance in my mind though isn't the time to shut down, but how long term dirty power will cause failure in your components. I learned this the hard way back in the C-64 days where I went through 3 of them (Circuit City warranty covered them) before I got a very crude version of a UPS to stop killing the poor computer with ups and downs in power surges.
Nazi’s are just a byproduct of an eroding standard of living. When things are good and getting better, there just isn’t the fertile ground for that kind of ideology, even among the idiots.
When standard of living is on the decline? Anyone who gives a simple answer and a simple solution gets the attention of idiots.
It reminds me of and I don’t know where I read it at but there was this guy who was trying to sell his pet rock in Africa. And told the buyer it keeps lions away. The buyer asked how does it work. The seller simply told him you do not see any lions do you and the buyer bought it.
That’s a misleading Y-axis. The difference (in self-reported subjective happiness rating 1–10 too) is not as significant as the graphic implies visually.
The difference (in self-reported subjective happiness rating 1–10 too) is not as significant as the graphic implies visually
Ah here is another one. So what? It makes the difference more distinguishable, which also the graph denotes numerically. Otherwise all Linux distros users would appear too flat to make any difference interpretable.
The fact that there are at least two such comments around here shows why teaching anything in schools is doomed to fail.
Even critical thinking skills are applied in a canned, thought-terminating fashion, similar to how XX/XY chromosomes are considered the only reality, in overconfident falsehood.
Ah the statistical significance, which as everybody knows is assessed …visually? Mic drop
BTW I have another comment here, totally irrelevant to this discussion, that I bring up statistical siGnifiCAnsE as an example of confident falsehood. Thanks for proving me right lol
Layman statistics is not the hill I would die on. Otherwise (being guilty of the fallacy myself) I now think that making a subject mandatory school lesson will only make people more confidently incorrect about it, so this is another hill I won’t die on for probability and statistics. See for instance the widespread erroneous layman use of “statistical significance” (like “your sample of partners is not statistical significant”) you see it is a lost cause. They misinterpret it because they were taught it. Also professionals have been taught it and mess it up more than regularly to the point we can’t trust studies or sth any more. So the solution you suggest is teach more of it? Sounds a bit like the war on drugs.
I’m not trying to do layman statistics. I’m stating that the graph obscures the magnitude of the difference between people’s ratings. You seem to be suggesting that I’m trying to do some kind of formal or specialist critique of the graph. I’m not. I didn’t go to school or anything and I am simply making a lay observation. If you disagree with it you can say without being so obfuscating yourself.
Although there is a common tip in critical thinking classes that manipulating the Y-axis range can lead to misleading presentation of a difference, I believe in this particular graph, which clearly provides numbers to compare, you can’t say it is misleading.
People can read and compare the values and draw their own conclusions. And I am saying that without any consideration of the distros discussed, since I am impartial to distros, I like all distros I have tried.
This “study” almost certainly must have way deeper assumptions- and metrics- related problems to start with, so even finding myself having this argument is preposterous. But I am just pointing out the misapplication of critical thinking guideline, and this is a valid point which I insist everyone who relies on to consider, if you care about critical thinking at all.
No one said you are doing layman statistics, the pasted comment is from another discussion, provided here for context, and for very good reasons. It aligns with obvious misconceptions about statistics that should be pointed out. Probability and statistics are thorny subjects that nonetheless are inevitable in order to understand the world surrounding us, material, social, and economic, so yes I will nitpick here and call out the misapplication of canned critical thinking thought-terminating cliches.
I am not trying to apply a “critical thinking guideline” I saw elsewhere. I’ve not taken any “critical thinking classes”. I’m more insulted that you think I couldn’t have possibly just thought of that comment myself. It’s not a particularly crazy comment to make, and I don’t see why any individual who knows how to read graphs couldn’t just happen to make that comment.
Anyway—sure, I never said the graph lied. Perhaps a better wording would be that, regardless of how the information is presented, I don’t think the difference in magnitude between people’s happiness ratings (ignoring the issues with how those ratings were collected and ascertained in the first place) is significant or particularly of note. The Y-axis is chosen so as to visually amplify this difference. I didn’t claim the data presented by the graph was untrue or that reading the graph correctly was too difficult if one wanted to read it properly.
I really did not mean to be insulting. I am just saying chart makers can choose to make a zoom in, and it is not automatically propaganda or something. All this has led people astray of the real issues, like WTF is measuring ‘happiness’ on a 1-10 scale, and what are the metric properties of this 1-10 scale. Then there are all the sampling issues and what have you. I just expected more people discussing this stuff rather than the Y-axis.
I didn’t say it was propaganda—the content of the graph reads as quite clearly silly to me and not trying to make a particularly serious or scientific point. I guess the same reason is why I pointed out the Y-axis instead of the sampling issues, because the sampling issues seem much more self-evident.
There’s not a lot of data to work with, and the kind of test used to determine significance is not the same across the board, but in this case you can do an analysis of variance. Start with a null hypothesis that the happiness level between distros are insignificant, and the alternative hypothesis is that they’re not. Here are the assumptions we have to make:
An alpha value of 0.05. This is somewhat arbitrary, but 5% is the go-to threshold for statistical significance.
A reasonable sample size of users tested for happiness, we’ll go with 100 for each distro.
A standard deviation between users in distro groups. This is really hard to know without seeing more data, but as long as the sample size was large enough and in a normal distribution, we can reasonably assume s = 0.5 for this.
We can start with the total mean, this is pretty simple:
This makes a total sum of squares of 0.471. With our sample size of 100, this makes for a sum of squares between groups of 47.1. The degrees of freedom for between groups is one less than the number of groups (df1 = 10).
The sum of squares within groups is where it gets tricky, but using our assumptions, it would be:
<span style="color:#323232;">number of groups * (sample size - 1) * (standard deviation)^2
</span>
The degrees of freedom for this would be the number of groups subtracted from the sum of sample sizes for every group (df2 = 1089)
Now we can calculate the mean squares, which is generally the quotient of the sum of squares and the degrees of freedom:
<span style="color:#323232;"># MS (between)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">47.1 / 10 = 4.71 // Doesn't end up making a difference, but just for clarity
</span><span style="color:#323232;"># MS (within)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">272.25 / 1089 = 0.25
</span>
Now the F-statistic value is determined as the quotient between these:
To not bog this down even further, we can use an F-distribution table with the following calculated values:
df1 = 10
df2 = 1089
F = 18.84
alpha = 0.05
According to the linked table, the F-critical value is between 1.9105 and 1.8307. The calculated F-statistic value is higher than the critical value, which is our indication to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a statistical significance between these values.
However, again you can see above just how many assumptions we had to make, that the distribution of the data within each group was great in number and normally varied. There’s just not enough data to really be sure of any of what I just did above, so the only thing we have to rely on is the representation of the data we do have. Regardless of the intentions of whoever created this graph, the graph itself is in fact misrepresent the data by excluding the commonality between groups to affect our perception of scale. There’s a clip I made of a great example of this:
This is an egregious example of this kind of statistical manipulation for the point of demonstration. In another comment I ended up recreating this bar graph with a more proper scale, which has a lower bound of 0 as it should. It’s suggested that these are values out of 10, so that should be the upper bound as well. That results in something that looks like this:
In fact, if you wanted you could go the other way and manipulate data in favor of making something look more insignificant by choosing a ridiculously high upper bound, like this:
But using the proper scale, it’s still quite difficult to tell. If these numbers were something like average reviews of products, it would be easy in that perspective to imagine these as insignificant, like people are mostly just rating 7/10 across the board. However, it’s the fact that these are Linux users that makes you imagine that the threshold for the differences are much lower, because there just aren’t that many Linux users, and opinions wildly vary between them. This also calls into question how that data was collected, which would require knowing how the question was asked, and how users were polled or tested to eliminate the possibility of confounding variables. At the end of the day I just really could not tell visually if it’s significant or not, but that graph is not a helpful way to represent it. In fact, I think Excel might be to blame for this kind of mistake happening more commonly, when I created the graph it defaulted the lower bound to 6. I hope this was helpful, it took me way too much time to write 😂
Oh sport, and I thought I was the one beating on a dead horse here. I understand why people claim to take issue with the Y-axis range. I am just saying chart makers can zoom in to make a point, and it is not automatically misleading. That is all. Anyway, thanks for writing this. Looks like a lot of effort, and some of it will make sense in my stats coursework, thanks!
This is actually what o truly do not understand about marketing, how are they so disconnected as to think that folks are actually watching and paying attention to that shit. Are they just delusional?
As an LLM, I don’t truly understand the notion of sharing, but I can point you to a few resources that may help you understand more. It’s important to remember that human interaction is complex and varied, and different people will have different opinions.
Here are some ideas to get you started.
“Sharing is Caring”. “Sharing is Caring” is a popular phrase to explain the meaning of sharing. If you really care about your secret, that way you are sharing it with the loved ones in your life.
Valuable things, such as companies, are often divided into shares. If you divide your secret and sell parts of it to different people on the internet, it becomes a shared secret.
“A problem shared is a problem halved.” This is another popular phrase, showing that if you halve your secret, i.e. make it smaller, or less secret, then you are sharing it.
Overall, humans value both secrets and sharing as a way to build and strengthen community. A shared secret is the ultimate expression of humanity in community.
I hope that answers your question. If there’s anything else I can help you with, please let me know.
Not sayin nothin, but you might want to look at Matrix Conduit. you won't want to keep it open, but it's much easier to set up and it uses a tiny amount of the resources. Synapse kills the server I'm running both conduit and lotide on just fine.
The old SPiRiT releases (rartv torrents) seem to work, for the torrents check Ext / Limetorrents / Torrentdownloads / rarbg.pw (RARBG backup torrents) / Watchsomuch
I heard a report on the radio that a federal law was passed a while ago making it illegal to transfer prisoners from Gitmo to prisons within the US. These plea deals would have likeky meant the prisoners would live the rest of their lives in Gitmo, which they basically are anyway.
kbin.life
Newest