Normal
I enjoyed reading this a lot - good points all around. I would add that if you are depending on the school system of any country to teach critical thinking, you shouldn't. Hopefully it is taught in school but it should always be taught in the home at a very young age. I have a daughter and it will be something we constantly go over.As to the Intel/AMD reviewer part, I don't see anything wrong. If Intel is asking for reviewers to contact them, so? Intel's primary job is to do good for share holders and look out for the company. While I would disagree with them trying to strong arm reviewers (which is speculated about and isn't even a source of a source thing) perhaps they want to check with reviewers to see what their review methodology is -- if they are utilizing benchmarking programs that favor one instruction set over another or whatnot. Reviewers can always tell them to pound sand. If I was Intel I'd want a sneak peak so I could start readying my counter argument to AMD. I don't see anything wrong with that, that's business.I would also like to add that I enjoy the reviews here - a lot of honesty and I don't get the 'well I better say they are decent or people won't send me crap to review!' vibe I get on many other sites/magazines. Magazines especially, that is why all gun mags are shit.(An example in journalistic handwaving would be gun magazines who review guns and then use 3 shot groups to demonstrate the accuracy potential of guns or ammo that is being reviewed. 5 shot groups are usually held to be the minimum for useful groupings while doing load development with 10 shot groups being the minimum threshold for measuring good accurracy. Super easy to cherry pick good three shot groups.)
I enjoyed reading this a lot - good points all around. I would add that if you are depending on the school system of any country to teach critical thinking, you shouldn't. Hopefully it is taught in school but it should always be taught in the home at a very young age. I have a daughter and it will be something we constantly go over.
As to the Intel/AMD reviewer part, I don't see anything wrong. If Intel is asking for reviewers to contact them, so? Intel's primary job is to do good for share holders and look out for the company. While I would disagree with them trying to strong arm reviewers (which is speculated about and isn't even a source of a source thing) perhaps they want to check with reviewers to see what their review methodology is -- if they are utilizing benchmarking programs that favor one instruction set over another or whatnot. Reviewers can always tell them to pound sand. If I was Intel I'd want a sneak peak so I could start readying my counter argument to AMD. I don't see anything wrong with that, that's business.
I would also like to add that I enjoy the reviews here - a lot of honesty and I don't get the 'well I better say they are decent or people won't send me crap to review!' vibe I get on many other sites/magazines. Magazines especially, that is why all gun mags are shit.
(An example in journalistic handwaving would be gun magazines who review guns and then use 3 shot groups to demonstrate the accuracy potential of guns or ammo that is being reviewed. 5 shot groups are usually held to be the minimum for useful groupings while doing load development with 10 shot groups being the minimum threshold for measuring good accurracy. Super easy to cherry pick good three shot groups.)
