>zoomers will pay 300 dollars for this

>zoomers will pay 300 dollars for this

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, I don't there is a reason threw it in the trash.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    nothing has ever changed in the history of humanity.
    1200 years ago you could convince the average person to buy yellow rocks telling them it was gold. 80% of all humanity for all history are stupid. humans naturally want to do what they are told by someone more powerful than them. this has never and will never change. don't act so surprised, or as if it's a new phenomenon.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. We went from eating natural healthy raw meat to destroyed unhealthy cooked meat. We went from eating healthy fermented foods to sterilizing and pasteurizing everything. We went from building natural immunity to injecting our children with aluminum and mercury laden vaccines. Why did people do this? Because they were told to. It really doesn't go further than that.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >eating natural healthy raw meat to destroyed unhealthy cooked meat.
        everything else you said was mostly correct, but cooked meat was adopted mostly because it's easier to digest and intake nutrients than raw meat, and since cooking it kills any bacteria it's much less likely to spread disease and virus

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Raw meat is easier to digest than cooked meat. You're eating destroyed proteins with almost no micronutrients.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            but cooked meat is fricking delicious

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can't argue that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I just eat vegetables and eggs. Half the year my own garden and eggs are from a local farm.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            that's almost entirely incorrect, good job. raw meat takes more energy to break down and cannot be broken down to the same degree as pre-processed food (ie cooked), notice how almost all other species feed their young by pre-processing the food - we just learned how to cook it to acheive a very similar result while also allowing it to be more digestible. since raw meat cannot be broken down as finely, the greater quanity of micronutrients cannot actually be absored into our digestive tract, it's the same reason why vegetables offer less nutriets to the diet than meat even though they contain more. the tradeoff with cooking is destroying some of the nutrionial value, but as it is already tender before digestion it is much easier to break down and absorb thereby giving a greater net benefit.

            for waht it's worth this is only true of red meats, for example many kinds of fish offer greater nutritional value raw, however extracting the omega acids from raw fish is more difficult for the body to do so it's better to let them ferment for a while first (check out and ancient greek garum as a great example)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >raw meat takes more energy to break down
            Nope.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, it does take more energy and effort to metabolized and places you at greater risk for food borne illnesses and parasites.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe if you live in a swamp.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nope, it is fact of life you actual try to live off the land. You are taking a chance with eating raw meat and hope you don't get a really bad case of food poisoning or a nasty parasite. Factory-farmed meat is much worse as it is a breeding ground for parasites and food-born illnesses.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >raw meat isn't good for you because factory farming is bad
            This is your brain on cooked meat.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            moron-take, raw meat inherently carries risks from parasites and food borne illnesses. That you can't take lightly if you are living off the land and don't access to modern medical science. Crapping yourself to death for a day or two from a bad experience wastes precious water that you cannot easily afford.
            Factory-farmed source stuff is simply much more dangerous to consume.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Eating healthy animals carries no significant risks of infection.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            healthy animals can still carry inert parasites and diseases, especially if they are carn- or omnivorus, eg chickens and pigs.

            cooking meat is something humans have done since well before civilisation, so your argument of "it's just because people told them to" falls rather flat when majority of meat cooking was done by individuals for themselves - individuals that went on to survive and evolve for thousands of years before agriculture created a tribal revolution to civilisation and society. at this point, our body is vastly more capable of digesting cooked meat and extracting it's nutrients, but even when it was first starting to take place the human body was only in a position to digest fruits and nuts, not meat. hunting was not a super common practise as it was incredibly dangerous and yelded little reward since the meat gave little more nutrition than fruit and spoiled much quicker. it was only after cooking meat that hunting became more common as it had much greater value. You look at any primitive tribe and you'll see they either ate fruits and nuts or they knew how to cook mear, they never lived off raw meat unless in extreme conditions, ie meat was never a staple until fire allowed cooking.

            you are very poorly informed, which isn't itself that bad as you can always learn, but you also seem to be unable to grasp the logic here, which is a concern. if cooking meat is so much worse, why was it ever done and why did it take over, even before society?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is zero evidence that hunter-gatherers thoroughly cooked their meat until completely brown throughout like we do today. It also goes against basic common sense that they would do so. We know that primitive tribes in more recent times would immediately eat the organs fresh and raw after a kill, drink the blood, and preserve the muscle meat for later.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Black person if you're talking about someome burning a steak to "well done" or beyond, that's entirely different than cooking meat. just because you don't know how to cook doesn't mean it's not better for you. obviously if you burn anything to charcoal it becomes inedible, but cooking is the process of heating something to break down the protiens into a more digestible form WITHOUT burning it.

            do you actually not know the difference between cooking and burning? it's basic chemistry, you heat something a little and it breaks down (this is good for food as your body needs to spend less energy breaking it down) but if you heat it too far it forms into charcoal, which is functionally indigestible. the "cooking revolution" of early humans was when they figured out how to do the former rather than the latter.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If by "cooking" you mean burning off surface area skin and fur and eating an entirely raw core, then alright, by that definition we can agree that cavemen were true masters of the culinary arts that would put modern day parisian chefs to shame.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about
            animals would have been skinned long before fire was discovered, and therefore cooked meat would be cooked more or less the same as it is today, with a consistant low heat to the exterior of a skinless animal until the inside reaches roughly the right temperauture. the inside isn't "raw", it has been heated to a point where the protiens break down and is therefore cooked.

            not only do you know nothing of history or anthropology you also know nothing about cooking. just give up dude, you have ZERO idea what you're saying. it's like trying to argue that cars aren't faster than walking because a car is so much bigger and heavier. it's utter nonsense to anyone who knows how these things work.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Have you seen how hunter-gatherers "cook" monkeys? They just throw the carcass onto an open fire until a few outer parts of it are charred and then they eat it while it's completely raw inside. The picture you're painting of tribes of primitives meticulously cooking away to avoid infectious diseases and parasites bears no resemblance to reality.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Have you seen how hunter-gatherers "cook" monkeys?
            oh im sorry, i wasnt aware you were alive 780 thousand years ago and personally saw how our ancestors cooked food

            if you bothered to even read the abstract of the first article i posted, you'd know the evidence is in the form of burnt fish remains where the bones are gone but the teeth remain, indicating a good amount of temperature control as fish bones get soft enoigh to decay at a temperature lower than the teeth, a temperature hot enough to consider the meat cooked without being charred indicating the fish were cooked carefullt and not simply discarded in a fire as you suggest

            not gonna bother anymore, you are clearly too stubborn, schizo and moronic to bother to read even basic information available freely on the internet in mere seconds, let alone any form of deep and constructive research.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're a moron. That guy isn't arguing in order to make people believe him. He's arguing because he's a fed and wants everyone to know people who believe in weird shit are obviously a bunch of brain damaged morons. Probably to try and break down public resistance to pasteurized milk products.

            basically this, for older content CRTs are great and super cheap. technically speaking a 4k 120hz OLED with a proper scaler and a good GPU will look better, but that's like $5,000 of gear when a good trinitron is like $500 at absolute most

            Once again with this "crts are cheap."
            Where?
            >Just look every 20 seconds on Craigslist
            The cheapest triniton that does 1440 is fricking 3k on eBay. Such displays don't even exist on Craigslist even if you expand to cover the entire west side of the country.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          that's almost entirely incorrect, good job. raw meat takes more energy to break down and cannot be broken down to the same degree as pre-processed food (ie cooked), notice how almost all other species feed their young by pre-processing the food - we just learned how to cook it to acheive a very similar result while also allowing it to be more digestible. since raw meat cannot be broken down as finely, the greater quanity of micronutrients cannot actually be absored into our digestive tract, it's the same reason why vegetables offer less nutriets to the diet than meat even though they contain more. the tradeoff with cooking is destroying some of the nutrionial value, but as it is already tender before digestion it is much easier to break down and absorb thereby giving a greater net benefit.

          for waht it's worth this is only true of red meats, for example many kinds of fish offer greater nutritional value raw, however extracting the omega acids from raw fish is more difficult for the body to do so it's better to let them ferment for a while first (check out and ancient greek garum as a great example)

          This guy is right. Sushi is famously extremely hard to digest.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I used to repair those. It's a K-9 chassis. One motor, many little plastic gears with tiny teeth and you have to align each one, one at a time using toothpicks. If you get one wrong you have to start all over and you can't test it without putting it all back together.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I used to repair those. It's a K-9 chassis. One motor, many little plastic gears with tiny teeth and you have to align each one, one at a time using toothpicks. If you get one wrong you have to start all over and you can't test it without putting it all back together.
      Were you trained to? I have fricking no idea how to

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Those were like $125 new 20 years ago

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      $125 20 years ago is worth $2000 now it's joeover

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        inflation isn't that bad and certainly not with consumer electronics.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    zoomers don't even know what that is

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      of course i know what it is boomer. that's a lite brite.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    High refresh rate OLED has killed the CRT meme, anyone who disagrees is blind, either actually or via nostalgia.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      noone seriously thinks CRTs are "better", it's just for $200 i can get something that exactly matches what my old N64 games used to and are supposed to look like, whereas I could do the same thing (arguably better) on modern hardware, but for more like $2,000 of display + scalers
      sure the CRT should only be worth like $10 or even nothing, but it's as good as I need it to be and $200 isn't $2,000 so really I'm saving $1,800 rather than wasting $200. I already have a TV I'm happy enough with for watching movies, but its worse for retro games than a cheap CRT and I see no reasom to buy a high end OLED when a low end CRT does the job

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No one is actually paying 300 dollars for 13" meme vcr combo tv's.
      Real CRT Black folk know that the only ones worth it are 27" and bigger.

      >NOOOOOO STOP ENJOYING YOUR CRT YOU ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG OR SOMETHING
      t. moron-kun who doesn't know what "preference" or "the real thing" means.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The ultra real CRT people are looking for Trintron and nothing else. People that just love 27+ CRTs didnt live with them and have to move them around etc.

        High refresh rate OLED has killed the CRT meme, anyone who disagrees is blind, either actually or via nostalgia.

        The only tech that really challenged the CRT was Plasma. Though that shared most of CRT's drawbacks...weight, heat, potential for burn-in was actually worse on Plasma. Both are "better" than LCD and even OLED in many ways, but advantages of LCD/OLED in terms of weight, ease of production etc won in the end.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >fake and gay tests

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      High refresh rate won't change the 0.2ms display lag.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Peak cope for skill issue

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      4k high refresh rate OLED
      >always have to buy newest GPU
      >still cant max out settings
      1600x1200 or 1920x1440 CRT
      >looks statically almost as good as OLED and in motion smoother at 80hz then OLED at 240 (you could get way more then 80hz with interlacing if you wanted to)
      >Doesnt require the most high end GPU, 4070 super can easily max out most games and sometimes even supersample at 1200p 75hz
      >monitor itself WAY cheaper
      CRT is harder to use and maintain but way more worth it.
      Frick paying for a 4090 and frick paying for an OLED

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        basically this, for older content CRTs are great and super cheap. technically speaking a 4k 120hz OLED with a proper scaler and a good GPU will look better, but that's like $5,000 of gear when a good trinitron is like $500 at absolute most

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, because all my content can run at hundreds of fps and 60 fps content is a myth.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Poorgay

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Modern games on a top tier CRTs is just better than any LCD out there. With OLED you'll need to hit a pretty insane framerate to match the motion smoothness of a these tubes. However, realistically nobody is finding these screens, so oled will be the best option for average users. Beyond this, CRT's dont last forever, phosphors literally lose their ability to shine brightly, so even Ill be going OLED for daily use and conserve my really nice screens for gaming and hd crt tvs for movies (widescreen).

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      HD CRT Widescreens are a unicorn for sure. I remember them and I even knew someone who had one at one point. It was kind of in a "big screen tv" stand alone form factor. Its only 1080i right? component video? I dont remember ever seeing any that had HDMI or 1080p

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah they are pretty hard to find. Yes 1080i only at least the Panasonic tau I have. But it has HDMI and it's a lagless 1080i, lightgun games even work on it (older systems). Unfortunately modern gpus don't use interlaced so you need to use an older gpu or a scaler, which is what I use. It's just for movies and not a great at PC gaming compared to my diamondtron, at 1600x1200, 109hz, it looks phenomenal and extremely smooth. Way better than 160hz LCD.

        >phosphors literally lose their ability to shine brightly
        How long does it take though? My old ass MX8000 is still bright as shit.

        Honestly I don't know, so I use my extremely rare monitor to game and just enjoy it while my less rare crt at my desk is for random anime watching. Let me be clear, CRTs are pretty bad at a lot of things, namely text, you'd never see me doing normal work on there, blender, Photoshop etc. are just better on a 2k LCD. But games and movies, no comparison, especially anime. For retro games you actually need a whole other monitor or a scaler because 240p isn't always possible on a crt monitor.

        This is kind of the frustration with CRTs and the conversations here. 90% of the people here only remember their standard def screen and never actually looked at a high end crt screen, they are extremely different, beyond that you need a different crt for different use cases, SD for retro games, HD monitor for modern games and if you are just looking for movie watching an HD tv. Good luck finding anything but standard def around you. Glad we have OLED. New tech is good.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The only "high end" CRTs I would bother with are VGA monitors. I don't see the point in hunting down some 1080i consumer set.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Standard NTSC CRTs are 640x480i while CRT computer monitors are up to 1024x768p

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's a very low resolution for a VGA monitor.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >phosphors literally lose their ability to shine brightly
      How long does it take though? My old ass MX8000 is still bright as shit.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Modern games on a top tier CRTs is just better than any LCD out there
      Wrong, they will reveal their unfortunate flaws that had led to their discontinuation.
      >INB4 MAH MOTION CLARITY!
      We aren't running content at 20-30FPS anymore nor using variable resolutions between applications and programs.
      All the recent CRT-talk is from contrarian hipsters who were born after mainstream CRT production had ceased.
      /Actual CRT-gay

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        see

        Yeah they are pretty hard to find. Yes 1080i only at least the Panasonic tau I have. But it has HDMI and it's a lagless 1080i, lightgun games even work on it (older systems). Unfortunately modern gpus don't use interlaced so you need to use an older gpu or a scaler, which is what I use. It's just for movies and not a great at PC gaming compared to my diamondtron, at 1600x1200, 109hz, it looks phenomenal and extremely smooth. Way better than 160hz LCD.
        [...]
        Honestly I don't know, so I use my extremely rare monitor to game and just enjoy it while my less rare crt at my desk is for random anime watching. Let me be clear, CRTs are pretty bad at a lot of things, namely text, you'd never see me doing normal work on there, blender, Photoshop etc. are just better on a 2k LCD. But games and movies, no comparison, especially anime. For retro games you actually need a whole other monitor or a scaler because 240p isn't always possible on a crt monitor.

        This is kind of the frustration with CRTs and the conversations here. 90% of the people here only remember their standard def screen and never actually looked at a high end crt screen, they are extremely different, beyond that you need a different crt for different use cases, SD for retro games, HD monitor for modern games and if you are just looking for movie watching an HD tv. Good luck finding anything but standard def around you. Glad we have OLED. New tech is good.

        >CRTs are pretty bad at a lot of things, namely text, you'd never see me doing normal work on there, blender, Photoshop etc.

        Basic CRT monitors everyone used were blurry as frick for regular tasks, people have either forgotten that or didnt know it in the first place. Consequently, most people ended up sitting a lot closer to a CRT monitor than they do LCD.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is within the context of high end monitors like GDM-FW900, which are completely lacking such issues.

        Standard NTSC CRTs are 640x480i while CRT computer monitors are up to 1024x768p

        Up to 2048x1536.

        The ultra real CRT people are looking for Trintron and nothing else. People that just love 27+ CRTs didnt live with them and have to move them around etc.
        [...]
        The only tech that really challenged the CRT was Plasma. Though that shared most of CRT's drawbacks...weight, heat, potential for burn-in was actually worse on Plasma. Both are "better" than LCD and even OLED in many ways, but advantages of LCD/OLED in terms of weight, ease of production etc won in the end.

        I talked to an older person about this a while back. Back in the day, people just didn't buy new TV's very frequently. Things cost more and people had less money. If you got a 200 pounds 36" CRT, you'd get movers in once and use that TV for the rest of your life or how long you lived in that house. Then again this person lived in a middle eastern country so it might not apply to where ever you are from

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Even as late as X-Men 2 in 2003, they show Colossus one arming a big CRT tv, to indicate that he is very strong. You didnt really move large TVs if you didnt have to and That was largely true in the USA too. Also, they usually werent replaced unless you wanted a different size or it had something seriously wrong. People made whole lifelong careers out of fixing TVs.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >People made whole lifelong careers out of fixing TVs.
            I remember that. Nowadays people just buy a new set whenever there's something wrong. Then again, electronics in general have gotten incredibly difficult and obnoxious to repair.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            there's no fricking way you remember a "tv repairman" unless you are over 50

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            nta, but i was born in '00 and when we fricked up the tv with magnets, my parents had to call someone with a magnetic coil and move it around the front of the tv to fix the color and realign it, not sure if that counts

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >This is within the context of high end monitors like GDM-FW900, which are completely lacking such issues.
          Wrong, GDM-FW900 is massively overrated even among the CRT crowd. Its main gimmick is being 16:10 during an era where source material was 4:3.
          >Up to 2048x1536.
          Assuming the RAMDAC on your video adapter isn't shit.
          CRTs are obsolete for the vast majority of use cases.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >crts are obsolete for the vast majority of use cases
            This kind of black and white thinking, style of aggressive objective statement, it just screams midwit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            for all practical purposes it is true. Outside of very specific use cases, the drawbacks of dealing with a CRT are much greater than LCD/OLED. There is no reason to pursue or seek that technology at his point, thus it is effectively obsolete. In a similar way, POTS landlines are superior to VOIP, and in some ways cell phones. Yet, that technology is also obsolete outside of a few specific use cases. The positive aspects of VOIP and cell phones more than make up for few advantages landlines have.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nope, it is cold hard truth that NuCRT gays don't want to hear. Newsflash, the vast majority of users aren't too hung-up over "MAH MOTION CLARITY AND THE SAMPLE+HOLD!" nor are they a hard requirement for the vast majority of use cases.
            There is a reason why CRT production had ceased almost 20 years ago. It couldn't even endure as a niche item catered to videophiles with deep pockets or some professional applications that couldn't be done with any other tool.
            Actual old CRT-gays don't really miss CRTs at all not even for simple nostalgia.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            for me crts just better in every way.
            their "disadvantages" are mainly low brightness and bad light rejection, i dont really care about that

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >CRTgay lives in a stinking poverty attic surrounded by piss bottles and cum rags
            Like poetry

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            i have a decently paying job, i just prefer to live like this.
            I save like 70% of my paycheck and buy nothing but food.
            Only big investment I made in recent years is buying a new computer, everything else from my phone to my desk i got from the side of the road, for free from relatives, or pulled it out of an ewaste dumpster.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            is that a 21inch monitor? I hope you reinforced your desk.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            its an old scool thick desk.
            Things used to not be made out of paper, holds up this 36 kilo beheamoth without any issues

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sauce?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            dirty pair

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >vast majority of users
            Are not the people browsing these threads. Autists are posting here, not normalgays, and we do not care about what they think.
            >There is a reason why CRT production had ceased almost 20 years ago
            Because normal people didn't care too much and those who still liked them could go out and buy used ones for pennies on the dollar back then. You can find even forum threads from 2010-2012 or so about how they played retro games on them. People saying "you should keep both a 4:3 CRT and 16:9 LCD" for cases such as fricked up 16:9 mode in Farcry 2.
            Mind you that CRT's cannot be produced on anything but a mass scale.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >normal people dont care too much
            this
            I dont know how many LCD/OLEDs I have seen that have blown out neon color settings, with soap-opera style extreme motion smoothing turned on, at eye searing max brightness.... and no one even seems to notice.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You have no idea what you're talking about

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >We aren't running content at 20-30FPS anymore
        Consoles sure are
        >nor using variable resolutions
        Nowadays rendering resolution can vary from one frame to the next and we live in the era of upscalers being built into the game itself because running at native res is too hard. I really do wonder if DLSS and FSR would exist if we didn't use raster displays.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Laser Phosphor Displays can't come into the consumer market soon enough.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      pic unrelated i guess, considering that ubislop is from 2004

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    good, if there's demand they will start making them again

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      no they wont

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Literally this. Boomers are now retiring en turbo fricked masse, and THEY were the only ones who knew how this CRT shit worked, literally is the most acute hardshit tech in terms of design, assembling and maintenance, LCD/OLED gays are moronic, CRT was peak technology with image enhancing trinitrons/PVM, carmack used one btw, no amount of sheer tardwrangling will ever chage this fact, deal with it. Competency crisis is real, and when boomers r gone, CRTs too, not even we wouldnt fabricate any of those (implying that they are not being fabricated now, or worse, had been out of manufacure 7 or 10 years ago(?)), but also we wouldnt be capable of maintaining those literal electric pressure bombs (vacuum, combined with longterm accumulated charge of the transformer), do you think that any Black person/zoomer will ever be capable of that?, ONLY white boomers did that, and no, even though they were made in asian shitholes, the design was done by white boomers, simple as that, and when CRTs start to fail, (even though they incredibly have survived more than 20 years, compared to cheap-crappytoy monitors of nowadays), nobody will fix nothing, this tech and among many other retro-tech is condemned to death, inevitably.

        Enjoy your CRTs while you can.

        moron-take, raw meat inherently carries risks from parasites and food borne illnesses. That you can't take lightly if you are living off the land and don't access to modern medical science. Crapping yourself to death for a day or two from a bad experience wastes precious water that you cannot easily afford.
        Factory-farmed source stuff is simply much more dangerous to consume.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          sorry, error mentioning this

          moron-take, raw meat inherently carries risks from parasites and food borne illnesses. That you can't take lightly if you are living off the land and don't access to modern medical science. Crapping yourself to death for a day or two from a bad experience wastes precious water that you cannot easily afford.
          Factory-farmed source stuff is simply much more dangerous to consume.

          anon, fricking clip board

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >nobody will fix nothing, this tech and among many other retro-tech is condemned to death, inevitably.
          It hurts

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    CRTs hurt my eyes

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    crt people are the new vinyl people. it would be one thing if they would just admit that it's an aesthetic nostalgia thing but they have to go NO BRO IT'S ACTUALLY WAY BETTER THIS WAY MODERN TECHNOLOGY IS A STEP BACKWARDS BRO

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There are things about CRT that remain objectively superior to modern tech and there are things about it that have been worse than LCDs since at least c2000.
      People get to choose subjectively what they value out of the objective advantages/disadvantages tradeoffs. But you're just straight wrong if you think tubes don't offer anything over current tech.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        exact same shit vinylgays say

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the only zoomers who actually hunt these down are ssbm players. t. recovered smasher turned tekken player.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    this is such a stupid argument
    cooking meat is the ENTIRE reason we exist today. cooking meat made it easier to chew and digest, allowing our jaws to stay small leaving more space for brain development, allowing more complex pattern recognition. It uses less energy to digest meaning we didn't need to eat as often meaning we could reproduce more often and develop faster. People could live longer and stave off winter and droughts due to cooked meat storing longer. it provides easier access to nutrients and protiens allowing for faster hormonal development leading to stronger bodies for less work, allowing for more time to develop tools and art and language. if it wasn't for cooking meat, homosexual sapiens would never have survived the ice ages given the inability to hibernate. cooking goes back almost a million years and was pivotal to our development. theres no way you could possibly argue anything otherwise without being severely mentally moronic.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is zero proof for any of your claims, it's pure speculation.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        on the contrary, theres plenty of evidence if you bother to look for it
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01910-z.epdf

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >paywalled article
          I'm sure you read that and didn't just copy whatever looked authoritative enough on google.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >theres no proof
            >no i won't accept your proof because
            sure, heres the summary
            https://dw.com/en/evidence-of-cooking-780000-years-ago-rewrites-human-history/a-63812031

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          ah, and for general benefitd of cooking meat -
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3625175/
          and for evolutionary effects -
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4860691/

          just after a cursory search. theres many more if you care to do your own research

          None of these articles support your claims. Claims such as
          >allowing our jaws to stay small leaving more space for brain development
          Humans don't need massive jaws that impede brain development in order to eat meat. Meat is soft, and humans use tools to cut. Apes close to the human branch with large powerful jaws used them to chew through fibrous plants. This is just idiotic and embarrassing.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        ah, and for general benefitd of cooking meat -
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3625175/
        and for evolutionary effects -
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4860691/

        just after a cursory search. theres many more if you care to do your own research

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Watching old movies on an HD, widescreen crt.
    >Playing half life 2 on a 22 inch VGA monitor at 120hz
    >Playing time crisis 2 on your big 480p crt tv with a friend
    Zoomers just don't get it. Enjoy your shitty blacks and viewing angles

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Zoomers just don't get it.
      Enjoy your shitty blacks
      CRTs had far worse blacks unless you are in a pitch door room.
      >viewing angles
      Only a problem for TNs, other LCD/OLED have very good viewing angles and only have problems at obtuse angles that nobody from a first-person perspective would actual use.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >T. Someone who has never seen a high end crt in person.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I have used them and they aren't really that special anymore.
        It is more like you never used a high quality modern display and your only experience is cheap TNs and IPS units.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Give me an example of a high quality display then

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I used to drag magnets across the screen of my CRT tv to make cool color patterns.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I found mine in my parents' old apartment's basement

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >LCD/OLED gays are moronic, CRT was peak technology with image enhancing trinitrons/PVM
    This is maximum NuCRT-gay cope. CRTs are objectively inferior for the vast majority of use cases. Not even videophiles with deep pockets wanted to deal with them.
    It is contrarian zoomer-age hipsters who are clamoring for CRTs for creed among their peers not actually for technical reasons. It is just modern take on cargo cults.
    I have used CRTs back in their heyday and I do not miss them all. They are simply a product of their era.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    zoomers? we're not buying these. these are for millennials who listen to music on vinyl while reading Marx. don't lump us with those homosexuals.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Music on vinyl is a patrician experience.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a millennial who has three CRT monitors and Two CRT tvs sitting around unused. It's my version of boomers getting cheap houses.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is a 1024 x 768 CRT at 80hz better than a 1920 x 1080 240Hz TN LED for esports like Overwatch? People keep saying CRT's have higher effective framerate because less motion blur and no latency. I want to hook a CRT up to a GTX 2080 TI, is there a displayport to vga adapter that can handle at least 144Hz at less than 5ms latency?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Probably not. At such a low resolution you can get much higher frame rates on most VGA monitors. You do need an adaptor that can handle the bandwidth of course, you'll need to do some googling.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >At such a low resolution you can get much higher frame rates
        How much higher? and would the higher framrates look better than the TN that can do 240Hz?
        >you'll need to do some googling.
        Tried, can't find one that even list the max HZ much less one that does 144hz or 240hz.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have a very similar tv sitting in my garage.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cap

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have this one I bought for $20. Run it to an antenna outside and watch sportsball at my desk.
    The VCR doesn't work the tapes get stuck or something.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >watch sportsbal
      y tho

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    300 dollars for a distorted view, eye strain, eye cancer, and a room heater

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *