3 ms·

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 noi

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 :)