What Are You Doing Right Now
-
Welp... this is my life now... probably should call and see wtf is wrong with the DSL line.
-
So it isn't an accusation really at all, it's just pointing out the obvious statements in the thread. Why he uses that false study to try to put innocent people asking questions at risk, I have no idea. But it is his MO. He like hunts down unsuspecting people to try to trick with that stuff.
-
I know that some stuff in the thread was deleted, I don't know if his original post meant to mislead the OP was removed or not. I've since muted him because it's hard not to keep feeding the trolls if you keep seeing what they post. He's not someone that there is any reason for me to be reading, so I muted him. Everything he posts is so mean and underhanded, he won't change. He's been confronted with it publicly and privately many times, it's just who he is. Nothing more to be done.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@mattspeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller That's one reason why I only post what I post. I'd rather say nothing than say something that's likely wrong and cause harm. Unless I'm making an obvious joke, I can't fathom willingly giving bad information.
Accidentally causing harm is unlikely. Robert is intentionally lying about a test he faked to mislead people and discredit actual math. It's a very different thing. And something he has a track record of doing.
Do you have any proof? That's quite the accusation
Yes, proof was in the thread. He fabricated a study and called us all liars (because the math we use is a myth.) I find it odd that he called most of the community liars, and then fabricated a story to substantiate it, and I'm questioned for calling him out but no one, except me, questioned him for calling us all liars in the first place.
I read in the thread about his study - it might be useful for clarity to post something that substantiates your side of this. Right now it's not looking good for either of you. Just an observation as someone who knows nothing of what's going on outside of what I read in that thread (as with 95% of the people who will read it).
-
@mattspeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@mattspeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller That's one reason why I only post what I post. I'd rather say nothing than say something that's likely wrong and cause harm. Unless I'm making an obvious joke, I can't fathom willingly giving bad information.
Accidentally causing harm is unlikely. Robert is intentionally lying about a test he faked to mislead people and discredit actual math. It's a very different thing. And something he has a track record of doing.
Do you have any proof? That's quite the accusation
Yes, proof was in the thread. He fabricated a study and called us all liars (because the math we use is a myth.) I find it odd that he called most of the community liars, and then fabricated a story to substantiate it, and I'm questioned for calling him out but no one, except me, questioned him for calling us all liars in the first place.
I read in the thread about his study - it might be useful for clarity to post something that substantiates your side of this. Right now it's not looking good for either of you. Just an observation as someone who knows nothing of what's going on outside of what I read in that thread (as with 95% of the people who will read it).
I had posted about the study. It was deleted by David, I think.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@mattspeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@mattspeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller That's one reason why I only post what I post. I'd rather say nothing than say something that's likely wrong and cause harm. Unless I'm making an obvious joke, I can't fathom willingly giving bad information.
Accidentally causing harm is unlikely. Robert is intentionally lying about a test he faked to mislead people and discredit actual math. It's a very different thing. And something he has a track record of doing.
Do you have any proof? That's quite the accusation
Yes, proof was in the thread. He fabricated a study and called us all liars (because the math we use is a myth.) I find it odd that he called most of the community liars, and then fabricated a story to substantiate it, and I'm questioned for calling him out but no one, except me, questioned him for calling us all liars in the first place.
I read in the thread about his study - it might be useful for clarity to post something that substantiates your side of this. Right now it's not looking good for either of you. Just an observation as someone who knows nothing of what's going on outside of what I read in that thread (as with 95% of the people who will read it).
I had posted about the study. It was deleted by David, I think.
¯\(ツ)/¯
-
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Welp... this is my life now... probably should call and see wtf is wrong with the DSL line.
That's pre-historic speeds. That would cause me to move. haha
-
I put several times in there that the study was false. I put a long technical explanantion of it. Talked about what he actually studied, what we were actually talking about, etc. It was all there.
-
@fuznutz04 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Welp... this is my life now... probably should call and see wtf is wrong with the DSL line.
That's pre-historic speeds. That would cause me to move. haha
We're stuck where we are for now.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I put several times in there that the study was false. I put a long technical explanantion of it. Talked about what he actually studied, what we were actually talking about, etc. It was all there.
It's highly irritating when they delete stuff. If people want to look like asshats that should be allowed.
-
That's the inherent problem with post deletion and editing. It's tough to follow the story after the fact. If I were modking, I'd lock the thread and move on. If needed, make a statement at the end about [insert obvious falsehood] to protect readers from misinformation.
-
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
That's the inherent problem with post deletion and editing. It's tough to follow the story after the fact. If I were modking, I'd lock the thread and move on. If needed, make a statement at the end about [insert obvious falsehood] to protect readers from misinformation.
I'll second that.
-
Just a quick recap as apparently they want to silence it to make him look good...
He knew that UREs are not evenly dispersed. The concerns with RAID reliability is UREs at organic failure time. He did a fake study of drives without failures and claimed that UREs weren't a real thing - that they were a myth. It was explained to him that that was not the way that UREs exhibit or how to test for that, so he knows that that wasn't a URE study for RAID risk. It wasn't a public post randomly, it was explained directly to him. He knows full well he didn't test what we are discussing at all, in any way. So he never says what the test is, or how tiny the sample size is, and he doesn't admit that he used small SAS drives that weren't even expected to exhibit the behaviour even under failure in his set size.
He then makes up a "100% failure assumption" and claims he doesn't need anything else because it didn't fail 100% of the time, and therefore UREs are a myth.
None of it tested actual UREs, tested what was discussed, and is based around something we believe he made up himself in the first place (the claim that UREs should cause 100% failure rates.)
-
@mattspeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I put several times in there that the study was false. I put a long technical explanantion of it. Talked about what he actually studied, what we were actually talking about, etc. It was all there.
It's highly irritating when they delete stuff. If people want to look like asshats that should be allowed.
I agree. The deletion of selection content can be highly manipulative. I certainly don't think david does that intentionally, but I think that he often misses how a simple deletion can totally manipulate the resulting appearance of the conversation.
-
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
That's the inherent problem with post deletion and editing. It's tough to follow the story after the fact. If I were modking, I'd lock the thread and move on. If needed, make a statement at the end about [insert obvious falsehood] to protect readers from misinformation.
This was used intentionally, many years ago, to protect Liquid Nitrogen Overclocking. They did stuff that was outright illegal (and caused us to find arrest warrants for them in multiple states) and to prevent the obvious connection for collusion, their entire post history, all responses, and all record of them was removed. Then later, anyone looking at us discussing them, makes the people who did the most to protect the community look the worst.
-
Well, I figured out why Kickstart was failing. Now that I'm sufficiently humbled, it's time to move on with the RHCSA book.
For those keeping score, the template kickstart file I was using had more storage available to it than what I'm using for my little test VMs; thus, it wasn't possible for Kickstart to create volumes as instructed.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
That's the inherent problem with post deletion and editing. It's tough to follow the story after the fact. If I were modking, I'd lock the thread and move on. If needed, make a statement at the end about [insert obvious falsehood] to protect readers from misinformation.
This was used intentionally, many years ago, to protect Liquid Nitrogen Overclocking. They did stuff that was outright illegal (and caused us to find arrest warrants for them in multiple states) and to prevent the obvious connection for collusion, their entire post history, all responses, and all record of them was removed. Then later, anyone looking at us discussing them, makes the people who did the most to protect the community look the worst.
Yeah. -
Doing updates on office VMs. Nine Windows, 1 Linux. Which VM finished first (and started last)?
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I put several times in there that the study was false. I put a long technical explanantion of it. Talked about what he actually studied, what we were actually talking about, etc. It was all there.
YOu can quote here on the moderation email what you posted and so you have documentation here
-
My youngest son was writing santa a letter on his iPad. He came a little bit ago and asked me to also sound this letter that he wrote to Microsoft...
