19700+ entries in 0.143s

a111: Logged on 2018-12-19 19:55 asciilifeform: phf:
i aint proposing to put the thing on ftp as-is.
phf: asciilifeform: it's clear now,
i believe it changed drastically literally today, up until now
i believe it was as
i was made to understand it.
a111: Logged on 2018-12-19 19:30 asciilifeform: phf: if dump weighs TB and (apparently) after whole year phf still not eaten it, might make sense to pgp to asciilifeform .
i'ma not post the raw docs and their yellowdots.
mircea_popescu: well, so in simple terms, is 'your response was essentially "
i'm not making any promises,
i'm going to dump the whole thing on the internet"' a factual claim or isn't it ?
mircea_popescu: so now. is the case as you publicly present it, "phf has been not helping for year +" or is the case as he publicly presents it, "
i tried to help a year ago but granularity didn't match and then he went on a campaign of fuming about whisperers ''in general'' transparently in reference to the particuylar case and
i was stuck sitting and listening to it."
a111: Logged on 2018-12-19 19:58 phf: asciilifeform: when
i communicated with you, in private, about the dump in the past, your response was essentially "
i'm not making any promises,
i'm going to dump the whole thing on the internet",
i've attempted to communicate to you that further value can be extracted from that relationship, if you're patient. your reaction to that was to start talking about whisperers etc. and then you come back with "
i wonder how you got your hands
mircea_popescu: and now im in the unenviable position of thinking about nonsense. look here asciilifeform : the man says
http://btcbase.org/log/2018-12-19#1881968 and what am
i to do ? remember that you're one of the principal idiots who decided to run their pizarro process throgh a encryptospitball, and before that you came up with the brilliancy that was "secret clauses" in pizarro nearly got ben_vulpes beheaded.
☝︎ phf: asciilifeform: wait, what?
i said that _our_ approaches _both_ are _0_.
a111: Logged on 2018-12-19 19:55 phf:
i took saeculum promises specifically to assist with republican work.
i think that dumping this dump as is is short sighted, because the dump by weight is garbage, and will trivially identify all involved.
i want to at least evaluate what's in it that can be of assistance to asciilifeform, an identification that became necessary only a week ago.
phf: asciilifeform:
i have no issues with unfriendliness of your approach or it's secret busting nature.
i'm trying different approach, and so far our success is identical in that it's 0. we're at a point where our mutual approaches can benefit, yet you deny me mine, periodically insulting it in creative ways.
phf: asciilifeform: hence
i said "but you won't take my word for it" yeah?
a111: Logged on 2018-12-19 19:29 phf: my approach to this is to find compromise,
i've volunteered all the information
i've volunteered so far.
i'm making a point that whatever asciilifeform might need for his work
i can communicate to him. is this approach not acceptable? it seems that
i'm just being pressured into dumping a dump of unknown quality and state, that might or might not help
phf: mircea_popescu:
i act out of character once, and it's to my disadvantage.
i got the original point,
i didn't at any point expect that there's a way to avoid it.
mircea_popescu: ie, not only do
i have no use for some guy who's gonna publish whatever his mom finds "appropriate" ; but on 2nd pass
i have no use for some guy fluffyponying it along.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform
i'm still discussing the line
i quoted,
i'm not yet at current log.
mircea_popescu: what, if
i hadn't said "you know, you can't propose whatever tards trump republican interest" that'd have ended up baked into precedent ? and what,
i'm supposed to not notice this ?
i notice.
mircea_popescu: now, as to me personally,
i find your behaviour deeply offensive for the following reason :
i do not believe you speak accidentally, you're much too meticulous and lengthily silent for that. the only reconstruction of today's discussion that stands my read is, "well, at first he tried line x, see if they're morons enoujgh to buy it ; that failed, regroupped to line y".
phf: asciilifeform: if
i followed your lead on this subject
i would've had nothing. for all
i know right now
i still have nothing.
i don't understand how you can't seem to connect that the answer to "how did you do it??" is in what
i'm doing. if
i'm not giving you anything, it's because
i don't have it, or
i don't know if
i have it, which is something for me to evaluate.
a111: Logged on 2018-12-19 19:29 phf: my approach to this is to find compromise,
i've volunteered all the information
i've volunteered so far.
i'm making a point that whatever asciilifeform might need for his work
i can communicate to him. is this approach not acceptable? it seems that
i'm just being pressured into dumping a dump of unknown quality and state, that might or might not help
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2018-12-19#1881922 <<
i suspect the approach is particularly chaffind to asciilifeform because childhood trauma, "older brother keeping the good chocolate to eat with his gf". but this aside, it is problematic because it very much smacks of usg-style "here's the conclusions of some measurements we're not publishing".
☝︎ phf: how much of this is genuine interest to replicate the damn thing and how much of this is just a blind "
i want, now now now"?
phf: there's no "docs", it's not some kind of mother lode of all things bolix. fwiw
i went into as excited and with the same expectations you're imagining right now. there was a set of printed papers that primarily existed in pre-ivory days. they are mostly related to e.g. mechanical layout of the boards (the bulk of stuff was e.g. machining parameters of motherboards and cases, something
i didn't even touch)
phf:
i've spent significant amount of time in the snap4 also, looking particularly at the ns bug,
i've played with the relevant instruction. it's not missing, it's apparently not buggy either, there's nothing to publish. throttling the emu seems to eliminate it though
a111: Logged on 2018-06-13 16:48 phf: well, if we don't,
i'll see if
i can get an unlock through corporate channels, and just use it as a one off machine
phf: asciilifeform:
i actually remember that one, but you'll have to trust me that my assumption on reading this was that you had debugging scaffolding in order to observe its operation, because reading layers of bolix<-alpha<-x86 code is not particularly enlightening. you've since acquired the source and clearly opted for electron microscope route.
a111: Logged on 2017-03-08 23:26 asciilifeform: mircea_popescu:
i did describe earlier, having concluded a few yrs ago that it is cheaper, easier, moar pleasant, to cut appart 'snap4' emulator (
i have a pc build here ~with debug symbols~, comes apart in ida nicely) than to suffer with nitric acid and electron microscope
phf:
i don't know when
i've learned about the source, it's on public github,
i don't know if
i've even seen you mention your snap4 work, or at which point
i've forgotten it.
phf: asciilifeform: you're reading selectively. _i_ was expecting to see dirt yr+ ago, there was none. it was totally a waste of work
phf: asciilifeform: for fucks sake, this whole argument started with me basically going "
i'm going to go over all that
i have and find bits that are relevant to your current work"
phf: asciilifeform: last year
i made a bunch of scans, that were almost entirely duds, you were as insistent on a release as you are now. this would've prevented this year's scans, that are potentially more relevant to your work.
phf: asciilifeform: there's this general position that what you're doing, you're doing to get yoursefl a running bolix clone, where's
i'm just fucking around, which is bullshit.
i'm doing the same thing, towards the same goals. it's not presently clear who's more successful. you basically want me to unilaterally fuck up my entire operation, because ~last week~ you bought a macivory.
phf: asciilifeform:
i don't know what you're proposing, because you haven't proposed anything.
i've proposed that
i go through the dump, find all the relevant bits to your project, and communicate them to you. this is apparently unacceptable
mircea_popescu:
i don't even care, past the (
i'd have thought obvious) point whereby specific lines of argument simply can't be brought.
phf: on it?" is this not fucking contradictory. and now
i'm basically in a position, where from your demands and impatience
i'm presented with a choice "either do this or you're out"
phf: asciilifeform: when
i communicated with you, in private, about the dump in the past, your response was essentially "
i'm not making any promises,
i'm going to dump the whole thing on the internet",
i've attempted to communicate to you that further value can be extracted from that relationship, if you're patient. your reaction to that was to start talking about whisperers etc. and then you come back with "
i wonder how you got your hands
☟︎ phf:
i took saeculum promises specifically to assist with republican work.
i think that dumping this dump as is is short sighted, because the dump by weight is garbage, and will trivially identify all involved.
i want to at least evaluate what's in it that can be of assistance to asciilifeform, an identification that became necessary only a week ago.
☟︎ phf:
i don't know how you missed my previous sentence, none of these people have "the dump", because there's no dump outside of the work
i did.