Most technologies, ideas, whatever you want to call them, created by nvidia are proprietary and vendor specific. AMD on the other hand offers them freely. No, the argument "but g-sync is objectively better" does not fly.
I do not follow either company's advancements very closely these years, so, crossing fingers I'm not downright wrong.

Do you and the folks modding you up realize that what you’ve just proposed is an engineered famine on a scale unprecedented in human history?

The goal is immediately stopping the fossil fuel industry. If you plan on shooting yourself in the head and I push your hand away so you get shot in your gut, it was to avoid certain death and trade it for almost certain death. You don't get to say "you shot me in the gut!". Not a very good metaphor, but this is what came to my mind. A situation that if left alone will certainly lead to great and irreversible harm, but which can be maybe, possibly, avoided by altering it just enough so that it is going to lead to a less disastrous situation. The famine will come. That, is inevitable. The choice is whether you cut off the limb yourself now or let it fall off by itself after the rot or infection has spread too far to be stopped from affecting the entire body.

Bro, if that’s the only way to save us we don’t deserve to be saved.

You probably, most likely, say this tongue-in-cheek, but yeah. We don't. Even you, knowing that if you do nothing people will die *and* the ecosystem will no longer be able to sustain human life, you *still* want to avoid doing something that will kill people *but* gives a chance the ecosystem will still sustain us. You do not want to do the *logical* thing because it sounds "bad" to you.

Argument for doing nothing... did the jerks need an argument for avoiding masks, during the pandemic?

And suppose you are right. 100%, completely, absolutely, mathematically right. How would you punish them?

(My argument is not that one, by the way, but that's a different topic)

I understand your point of view. It is a reasonable point of view. We do have solutions. We've had them for *decades*. The problem is *they are not being used*.

Warnings from specialists to start doing something were ignored, downplayed, ridiculed. They still are.
We did that 40 years ago. 30 years ago. 20 years ago. 10 years ago. We're not using them this decade: Like I said, fossil fuel use is uncontrollably increasing, but we still have 6 and a half years until 2030.

What makes you think we're gonna start using them in the future?
Because the situation will be so bad, homo sapiens-sapiens will be *forced* to do something?
Not only that, but the reaction will be the *correct* one?
To a problem that involves the single most complicated system we have ever seen, bar none and by a comically large margin?
On a planetary scale?
From a species that refused to wear a fabric mask to help a pandemic? (a few thousand tons of *plastic* medical waste yearly, by the way. Maybe those refusing to wear a mask were ecologically conscious?)
From a species that has never in its history of existence faced anything even remotely similar?
Successfully?
On the first and *only* attempt?

The ecosystem does not function on a yearly basis. It has huge, huge inertia. Not only that, but some changes are *irreversible*.
If species goes extinct, they're not coming back, and we've driven many, many species extinct already.
If farmland gets destroyed, it's not getting back.
If water becomes toxic, it's not going back.
By the time we *observe* the destruction, by *definition* it will be too late and we are *already* observing destruction. It's just not "in our face". And there is no warning shot. Once it starts, you can't hold it back.

I hope you can understand now why I say these things which seem pessimistic to others.

From my little understanding, the situation is so dire that even if we went "net zero"* tomorrow, we'd still be spectacularly screwed the coming decades. Yes, there are skeptics (one John Christy comes to mind) but all their counterarguments range from scientifically weak to downright lying. All metrics we see point to the ecosystem rapidly collapsing. There is no other way to phrase it. Some call me a "doomer". Maybe I am, maybe not. Maybe you somehow survive if you drive your car at120 kph into a tree. If I say "you're going to die if you continue driving 120 kph towards a tree", does that make me a "doomer"? Does it matter if it wasn't 120 kph but 115 kph?
Because as far as I understand, that's pretty much what we've been doing.
It seems to me the only hope our species has to continue living in a way that even slightly resembles today, is if the population took over all fossil fuel plants and shut them down. "But people will die, society will collapse, etc" well, yes. That is very true. That way, however, there is the possibility that in the long-term we'll recover, without fossil fuels and with the ecosystem no longer *worsening*. If we continue as we now do, not only will people again die, but the ecosystem will be even more damaged. There is no time to gradually "wean" us away from (out of?) fossil fuels. As far as I know, up until today, fossil fuel use has been monotonically increasing (smoothed curve over decades, there have been single years when fossil fuel use had actually dropped, 2008-2009, 2019-2020, only to resume increasing the next, even picking up the slack from the drop)

*: "net zero" is a term that is dangerously vague at best and downright impossible at worst.

It is one of the vanishingly few activities that are available to us and that bring us any joy in life.

What the f do you want? Who the f are you to rank what we consider as important?

We keep throwing words with no concern for their meaning. Data. Theft. Consumption.

You may call me a stuck up a-hole if it makes you feel better, but I suspect we're not gonna make any progress, nor solve any problem, if we misuse a language. If we fail to communicate our thoughts as accurately as we can.

Then again, what is a "thought"?

is that why medical personel, nurses and doctors, were freaked out? To make the theater more believable?

Was this worldwide theatrical act improptu, or coordinated? I ask because it was the same in other countries, too.

If this was some kind of conspiracy, where not *one* hospital came up and said "Here at Saint SuchAndSuch Hospital, we're as baffled as you are, as to why all the other hospitals are so freaked out. It's the same as always, more or less, over here." , we're talking about hive-mind levels of coordination. Or maybe dissenters were silenced by this hive-mind. It's certainly not impossible. I mean, we've found no physics law that forbids such phenomena.

Or perhaps this was more of an opportunistic event where hospitals all over the world decided to murder a bunch of people, using respirators as the murder weapon?

What do you have in mind?

"you don't need steam to launch the games"

TECHNICALLY you are correct. You can start the game's executable yourself. This, does not mean you can play the game, though.

What will most likely happen is the game you launched will either ask of you to launch it under steam (and exit) or launch steam itself.

Off the top of my head I can only remember Nuclear Throne being playable without steam.

[...] multiplication OF population and [...]

and since I'm here,

[...] you ONLY prolong [...]

It is not a technical issue. It is an issue of the multiplication population and resource use per person.

As long as you allow both to grow, no matter how you try to mitigate the problem, you onoy prolong the inevitable all the while digging your hole even deeper.

All available resources WILL be used to exhaustion. This, is an inherent quality of our species.

It is like trying to solve the problem of your child slapping you by making it wear mittens to soften the blow.

You're still searching for a technical solution. That's the "thinking" process that got us in this position, in the first place.

The problem is not what resources we are using. The problem is that we keep increasing the amount of resources we are using. Without bounds. That's what we've been doing since forever, since we became "homo sapiens-sapiens" and which picked up speed the past couple centuries.

Our track record of managing the ecosystem we rely on is abysmal. Our knowledge of it is pitifully poor.

What gives you the confidence that we will be able to *actively* adjust it without fucking it up even worse and even faster? Do consider that there is no second chance here. An error in this effort could very easily simply end the planet.

We still do not have the technology to make hair grow on your body at a location where it has stopped growing, something completely insignificant and comparatively trivial... simply make hair grow. ... yet you think we can somehow control the most complex system in the known observable universe?

How fucking stupid are you?

What about sharks?

Sharks still exist and they have existed since early jurassic, yes?

Maybe there are details, but if a single species from back then still exists today, it doesn't really change anything. I am only curious.

"it is most definitely *not* unreasonable to believe that the health of your child today is more important than the health of the climate in 50 years." ... more important, to *whom* ?