Posts by goldenjackal43

Larry Ortiz5 said:In my view, everything seems fine. However, I am feeling a bit skeptical regarding the power supply unit. If this card truly pulls a maximum of 250 W, as indicated on this page, then the PSU should handle it without much trouble—leaving you with roughly 80-90 W of headroom at peak load (assuming the specs on this site are accurate; see the link below). But the real question remains: what is the exact model of your power supply? There is a v2 series out there, after all. If you aren't certain, it might be best to simply pop the case open and check the specific model printed directly on the unit itself.

http://gpuboss.com/graphics-card/GeForce-GTX-780

No, I don't see any mention of a v2 version anywhere. I am fairly confident that this is the power supply in question.

Hi everyone, so right now this graphics card is relatively cheap due to a sale, which leaves me with two questions:

1. Do you think it's actually worth picking up? Is there something new on the horizon that might crash the price, or am I good to go?

2. I'm currently running an EVGA 500 W Bronze Power Supply. The rest of my build consists of an Intel Core i7 4771, a 128GB SSD paired with a 1TB hard drive, an ASUS B85M-D3H motherboard, and a Corsair Elite 371 case. Will my power supply be able to handle it?

By the way, would this one be a better choice? My only real concerns are whether it requires a beefier power supply or if it lacks a decent cooler.

I’d appreciate any help you can offer. If you have any advice or critiques—for instance, if you think my case is too small for these components—please feel free to speak up. I'd be very grateful.

On an individual level, it probably averages out. Most people don't manage to find that one singular passion and achieve massive success within it simultaneously; instead, they face the reality of compromise, balancing their interests with a career that actually pays the bills. Then, as we age, health issues inevitably start to creep in.

But look at the broader picture. There are millions of people who grew up in abusive or neglected households and still managed to find significant success later in life. Conversely, there are plenty of people who lived incredibly comfortable lives from day one, yet find themselves easily disillusioned by even the smallest setbacks. Then you have those who spend years, decades, relentlessly chasing a specific goal—the ones who find their greatest sense of fulfillment upon winning an Olympic medal, a Nobel Prize, or a Fields Medal, or perhaps becoming a world champion. And finally, there are the lifelong learners, the scientists and researchers, who spend their entire lives doing work they love and are still making progress well into their 80s.

Everyone has their own unique journey. Every story is composed of peaks and valleys; you can't simply point to a single period in life where a person is at their absolute happiest. 😉

swiftbear86 said:I’m with you on that.
If I were setting the rules, the only thing worth giving extra credit for would be making it to a national competition in a core subject. Maybe one point for participating, and then a little bump for the top three finishers at the state level or the regional level.
The problem is, even those competitions aren't always fair.
Right now, getting to the nationals depends on whether you rank at the very top of your specific region, rather than just having a high enough score overall.
That might have changed recently, but just a few years ago, you could have a student in Washington, D.C. with way higher scores than someone in another state, yet they wouldn't even get an invite to the national stage because of how the regional cutoffs worked.
In my book, the only metric that should count is pure merit—basically, your actual score.

When it comes to math, computer science, and physics, at least during my era, advancement was strictly based on scores. So, that system was entirely fair. (Granted, there were times with physics where they’d mess around with scoring or non-public results, but generally, the best performers moved forward; complications only really cropped up for those right on the bubble.) As for chemistry, biology, English, or American literature, I can't say for certain.

Regardless, the national math and computer science competitions are undoubtedly the gold standard for admission into a specialized STEM academy. I fail to see what could theoretically demonstrate aptitude for a STEM-focused high school better than performing well in national math and CS contests. Physics is a bit more hit-or-miss, but it’s likely still a better indicator than mere classroom grades.

As for language academies and the national English or American literature exams, I am less informed. Some might argue that the same logic applies as it does for math schools, but I can't say that with any certainty because I don't know how those specific competitions are structured or the true caliber of the participants. Unfortunately, nobody seems to actually know; people just philosophize blindly and make decisions without having the slightest clue about the actual level of competition.

That is the fundamental issue we face here in America. Decisions ought to be made by people who are actually well-versed in the subject matter. Are people aware that in North America, participation in the European Championships is often a much more significant factor for university admissions than it is here, where it's treated as practically irrelevant? There seems to be a general mentality like that here; even you all on this forum are attempting to estimate how many points certain competitions should yield without knowing anything about them. But well, I won't get bogged down in a deep analysis now...

alhidada, the correlation between test scores and intelligence sits at roughly 0.5.

The truly elite prep schools are defined by their performance on standardized exams, their success in academic competitions, and the sheer number of points required to secure an enrollment spot—though while the official cutoff might be around a 58, anyone worth their salt knows the real threshold is closer to a 60 or 61. These are the external metrics that ultimately define what makes a top-tier academy.

Dana Diaz8 said:

I don't know what to tell you. Some things just never change, do they? It’s the same old cycle, over and over again. Why does everyone act so surprised when the inevitable happens? Honestly, I'm just exhausted by the whole thing. kaže:
Did I actually write that?
Look, if you aren't exactly a genius, surviving high school is going to be an uphill battle. Especially if you end up at one of those elite prep schools where the pressure is relentless. And honestly? Even the kids who think they're smarter than everyone else aren't going to breeze through it that easily either. je He might be brilliant, sure, but he’s lazy and has zero interest in actually hitting the books. If he hasn't figured out how to study by the end of sixth grade—if he hasn't shown any genuine curiosity or passion for a subject, or if his grades are just trashed because he simply refuses to try—then what are we looking at? Basically, if he hasn't found a way to actually demonstrate that intelligence of his, does it even matter?

That’s just how I saw it.

Look, I agree that laziness and pure negligence will absolutely ruin you, but I’m still standing by my point: you don't need to be some kind of genius just to graduate high school, and finishing one certainly doesn't turn you into an overnight prodigy. I know plenty of people who went the vocational route—think trade schools or technical programs—who ended up being far more skilled and capable in their careers than those who spent four years in a traditional prep school. Does a diploma really define your intellect? Not always. I know a few seasoned tradespeople myself—guys who put in three years of solid vocational training—and I have to point to my neighbor, a master carpenter, whose skills are on another level. Honestly, most high school grads or even specialized vocational students would be absolutely embarrassed standing next to him. Even I’d feel a bit outclassed. I spent exactly one year studying geometry in high school, but unlike most people, I actually know how to apply what I learned. That’s the distinction between me and the straight-A types—the techies and the prep school kids who can recite formulas but couldn't solve a real-world problem if their lives depended on it. In my view, the ability to actually *use* knowledge is the only thing that matters if you want to survive in the job market, even if employers are too blind to value it. It seems to me that parents constantly push their kids toward those elite private academies because some outdated social standard convinced them it’s the only path to success. They think sending a kid to a top-tier preparatory school is a guaranteed ticket to stardom, but they’re dead wrong. Why can't we just let kids decide which path they want to take? We should let them make their own choice first, and then—only after they've weighed the options—offer our support, some actual advice, and maybe help them pivot toward a trade or a vocational program if we see they're heading for a dead end.

See, there’s the double standard. You argue that someone can excel in a trade school and that prep schools aren't the only path to success, yet you seem to treat graduates from those elite academies as if they are one monolithic, superior group.

The reality is this: if someone successfully navigates a rigorous preparatory academy, they possess a certain baseline level of intelligence compared to the average student. It doesn't mean they are a genius, nor does it mean they are inherently smarter than everyone in a technical program, but if they can handle that academic workload, they could likely manage most vocational curricula as well (granted, there are niche trades requiring highly specific talents). The reverse isn't necessarily true, though I suspect a significant number of talented trade students could succeed in a top-tier prep school if they applied themselves accordingly.

I also know several master craftsmen—people who finished three-year programs—and I’m thinking specifically of my neighbor, a carpenter, whose skills could put both prep school grads and trade specialists alike to shame (myself included).

Fair enough. On the flip side, I know one particular prep school graduate who could make any trade specialist, any vocational instructor, and even most academy professors look incompetent by comparison. I hope you see now why these individual anecdotes are completely irrelevant to the core of this discussion.

Good grief, a national competition worth zero points 😲

This is genuinely tragic. We lose the high school graduation requirements, we lose the entrance exams, and now, apparently, we’re losing the competitions too. It means everything is left entirely up to school board politics and the whims of individual teachers. Honestly, it just opens the door wide for favoritism and corruption.

People claim that graduation exams or entrance tests are "too stressful"? Then what exactly do they think this current mess is? There is no room for compromise here, and there is no way to actually distinguish yourself through merit. If someone happens to be one of the top five math students in the entire country, yet they have to deal with tears and frustration because some gym teacher decided to be "strict" and block their path to the specialized academy where they actually belong, then you truly know the system is broken.

Forget about actual knowledge; forget about personalized learning. Instead, we're teaching kids from day one how to play the game and suck up to authority just to scrape by with decent grades. And then we act surprised when they show up to college and completely fall apart. Honestly, I’d be struggling too if I had to fake my way through grades in college, especially when you've been conditioned since childhood to resent the very idea of learning.

wanderinggardener12 said:It seems nobody is talking about this latest proposal from the Secretary of Education and the rest of the administration, which makes me wonder if I should even bother starting a thread on it—especially since I don’t have a child directly impacted by these changes right now.
The proposal is headed for debate soon, yet amidst all the chaos currently facing our country, it seems to be slipping through the cracks, barely making a headline.
The Secretary wants to move enrollment entirely online, much like the system they implemented for college students three years ago. On paper, it’s supposed to make life easier for everyone—the kids, the parents, and the high schools themselves.
Under this plan, students can apply for ten different programs across a maximum of five schools. It sounds like a genuine improvement, provided the entire digital infrastructure doesn't collapse under the weight of 50,000 candidates hitting those servers at the exact same moment.
Then there’s the other side of the coin: the overhaul of the grading criteria. They aren't just looking at 7th and 8th-grade marks anymore; they’re pulling in data from 5th and 6th grade too. Previously, it was based on five subjects depending on the school and general GPA, but now they want five subjects plus GPAs calculated down to two decimal places. Furthermore, music and dance school credentials won't grant extra points anymore, and points earned from competitions will be scaled back.
In my view, these shifts could be excellent, provided they aren't applied retroactively. Families and students often develop specific strategies; they calculate their moves carefully. A parent might decide that those extra points from music school are more vital than an average grade in, say, shop class or art, or perhaps they aim for a specialized language academy where a mediocre science grade in 5th grade matters far less than maintaining straight As in history and social studies.
Ultimately, these new regulations will only ramp up the pressure on elementary school teachers. Everyone will be chasing perfect scores in every single subject, which will inevitably lead to even greater grade inflation and a sense of enrollment panic—if not outright hysteria—starting as early as 5th grade.
While the Secretary talks about reducing stress levels by eliminating mid-term grades, he seems to be charging headlong into disaster with an idea that is clearly unprepared or, at the very least, poorly thought out.

Reduced? Reduced from what? Is the national competition going to carry only 1 point instead of 2 now?🤣

This kind of policy has screwed over some truly talented students before. Take one guy, whom I won't name, who was an incredible mathematician and computer scientist. Despite being a top-tier competitor, he had a few Cs back in middle school, which ultimately kept him from getting into a specialized STEM academy. To give you an idea of his talent: during high school, he became a national champion in computer science, won awards every single year for four years straight, was the absolute winner of the USA Computing Olympiad, took home prizes in national math competitions, and even earned medals on the international stage. And yet, despite being an internationally recognized programmer, he couldn't get into the computer science track at a premier science high school.🤣

But honestly, isn't it true that for a science-focused high school, national—even county-level—achievements should carry far more weight than mere classroom grades? After all, competition results are objective, whereas middle school grades can be, to say the least, subjective.

Terry Grant2 said:Oh, goldenjackal43... you claim there are people who simply aren't capable of hearing, yet you end up being the demanding one, acting like a total jerk...
But here you are complaining about intolerance... when in reality, your own post just demonstrated exactly what you're talking about... 😛 ... and all of this happens because YOU have never actually had to deal with those kinds of struggles in your own life... 🙄

Actually, I have dealt with those issues. I’ve been forced to spend time with people I didn't particularly care for for an entire week at a time, sometimes longer. And whenever I realized something wasn't working, I would be direct about it. If we wanted to end a friendship, we would have done it mutually—clear, loud, and spontaneous.

Take a look at these posts. "Honesty hurts me, but damn it, I have to do this; he was a good friend, but I just can't do this anymore. I don't know what's bothering me, but I don't want to be around him, so I'm going to cut all ties with my friend. It hurts me, poor me, but it's for the best..." It's the same story. Some people have character, some are growing, others are developing new traits, changing, and learning. You think you're living out some grand melodrama, but in reality, you've just ghosted someone without ever giving them a reason.

The level of intolerance being displayed lately is honestly quite alarming. Personally, the idea of acting that way has never even crossed my mind. It’s not that a person "doesn't suit" you; it’s simply that their behavior is problematic. In those instances, I prefer to be direct: "Look, I don't appreciate how you're acting; it's bothering me when you do this or that." I’ve always felt I have enough patience to accept people for who they are, provided they aren't imposing on me or doing anything genuinely harmful.

To everyone here who claims they can't stand certain friends: you're just being cowards. Instead of having the backbone to say something to their face, you pretend everything is fine and maintain this facade of friendly relations while you're actually seething inside.

Broadly speaking, I see far too much intolerance everywhere these days. Everyone seems obsessed with categorizing people—deciding who fits their vibe and who doesn't. Can we all just relax? It’s perfectly natural to have a small circle of close friends, but there's no need to maintain some rigid, suffocating social hierarchy in your head as if you were living in a caste system in India.