3 ms·

Except my PC doesn't wake up the neighborhood.

by art0rz 5y ago

imoverclocked 5y ago
It might produce EMI though. (if we are picking nits)
- imoverclocked 5y ago
  Wow, downvoted into obscurity despite factual basis. Overclocking can in fact produce EMI. I realize that audible noise is very readily recognized as harmful. It’s been studied and proven to be harmful, as have other forms of pollution. I think EMI affects less people directly but it’s still noise.
  - NikolaNovak 5y ago
    I think you're down voted due to ridiculousness / perceived intellectual dishonesty. You're putting the argument that overclocking a CPU, due to increased impact, is analogous to putting a straight pipe on a Harley. I would imagine that difference is sufficient number of orders of magnitude different to be a fundamentally ignorable comparison, and obviously so. A loud pipe has an immediate and continuous demonstrable negative impact on hundreds and thousands of people per trip. You would need to show me some reaaally good studies to show that increased (not just baseline) EMI of overclocking is even readily detectable through the faradey cage of computer case and then three houses down the road, and distinguishable in the noise of street transformers, Fridges, laser printers, etc.
    - imoverclocked 5y ago
      There are a few good insights here. If it affects 1% of the population instead of 50% then it’s far more likely to be dismissed. Also, given other similar noise, adding a little more doesn’t seem like an issue. None of this is to say that two stroke motors and loud vehicles don’t get on my nerves. Rather, we all have more in common than we think we do. I used to be considered “sensitive” because I hated all of the latent noise. I feel like I would be considered “reasonable” based on this thread which is now backed by studies showing noise and environmental pollution as having long-term, negative side-effects. On a technical note, Faraday cages are much better at protecting receiving electronics from outside signals than the other way around. Signals have an easier time leaving a Faraday cage than entering.
      - NikolaNovak 5y ago
        >If it affects 1% of the population instead of 50% then it’s far more likely to be dismissed. I wouldn't call it insight, I'd call it prioritization; but perhaps more to the point, you've provided no evidence whatsoever that overclocking a CPU will affect any proportion of population whatsoever (not 50%, not 1%, not 0.01%), at any distance, in any circumstance. And remember, we're not even saying "whether a computer emits EMI". The claim put forward is that overclocking a PC, say from 3ghz to 3.3ghz, has detectable enough negative impact on people other than the owner / in other households, to be part of this discussion. Certainly, I currently do not believe so and am dismissing your argument for that reason. You are welcome and indeed encouraged to persuade me otherwise :)

Except my PC doesn't wake up the neighborhood.

by art0rz 5y ago

Except my PC doesn't wake up the neighborhood.

imoverclocked 5y ago

It might produce EMI though. (if we are picking nits)

imoverclocked 5y ago
Wow, downvoted into obscurity despite factual basis. Overclocking can in fact produce EMI. I realize that audible noise is very readily recognized as harmful. It’s been studied and proven to be harmful, as have other forms of pollution. I think EMI affects less people directly but it’s still noise.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  I think you're down voted due to ridiculousness / perceived intellectual dishonesty. You're putting the argument that overclocking a CPU, due to increased impact, is analogous to putting a straight pipe on a Harley. I would imagine that difference is sufficient number of orders of magnitude different to be a fundamentally ignorable comparison, and obviously so. A loud pipe has an immediate and continuous demonstrable negative impact on hundreds and thousands of people per trip. You would need to show me some reaaally good studies to show that increased (not just baseline) EMI of overclocking is even readily detectable through the faradey cage of computer case and then three houses down the road, and distinguishable in the noise of street transformers, Fridges, laser printers, etc.
  - imoverclocked 5y ago
    There are a few good insights here. If it affects 1% of the population instead of 50% then it’s far more likely to be dismissed. Also, given other similar noise, adding a little more doesn’t seem like an issue. None of this is to say that two stroke motors and loud vehicles don’t get on my nerves. Rather, we all have more in common than we think we do. I used to be considered “sensitive” because I hated all of the latent noise. I feel like I would be considered “reasonable” based on this thread which is now backed by studies showing noise and environmental pollution as having long-term, negative side-effects. On a technical note, Faraday cages are much better at protecting receiving electronics from outside signals than the other way around. Signals have an easier time leaving a Faraday cage than entering.
    - NikolaNovak 5y ago
      >If it affects 1% of the population instead of 50% then it’s far more likely to be dismissed. I wouldn't call it insight, I'd call it prioritization; but perhaps more to the point, you've provided no evidence whatsoever that overclocking a CPU will affect any proportion of population whatsoever (not 50%, not 1%, not 0.01%), at any distance, in any circumstance. And remember, we're not even saying "whether a computer emits EMI". The claim put forward is that overclocking a PC, say from 3ghz to 3.3ghz, has detectable enough negative impact on people other than the owner / in other households, to be part of this discussion. Certainly, I currently do not believe so and am dismissing your argument for that reason. You are welcome and indeed encouraged to persuade me otherwise :)