33200+ entries in 0.183s

trinque: this isn't comcast technical support, might find me getting to it when
I get to it too.
cnomad:
i'll get to it when
i get to it
☟︎ trinque: no,
I'm not doing this for you again in November.
cnomad:
i guess
i didn't update my site
trinque:
I'm looking at what ended up in deedbot's keyring when you fed it that key
cnomad: right but you see what
I'm saying?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform, notice how well arbitering works!
i have no way to specify ~whether~ im actually paying a coin into this shipile or not. NOR DO
I CARE.
i'm just letting you arbiter.
mircea_popescu: consider :
i give you pill, you sell it to google, you tell me it's my fault.
mircea_popescu:
i think the principal result of the discussion is, "can't have multi-pronged or articulated contests"
mircea_popescu:
i'd like alf state lottery. "if you win and after 10 years are poor, you win again"
mircea_popescu: the more
i think about this, the more
i want alf to be in charge of all sorts of things. imagine alf-run horsetrack.
mircea_popescu: well, scholarship only helps in the way it helps, what can
i tell you.
phf:
i don't think "can still buy and diddle of amazon in a month" is adequate test for "didn't leak the patch to google". but
i don't think there's a procedure to test the goal in general (see absence of evidence above). perhaps you could restate the goal, but then whatever restatement
i'm not sure it will be under the control of the participant. in fact as mircea_popescu pointed out, a restatement of this particular goal simply introduces a random element
mircea_popescu: "what the fuck is your problem ?" "
i just spent all day telling teenagers they're ugly because they don't have three tits".
mircea_popescu: consider this :
i set up a tent at porcfest, advertising "mp slavegirl intake". and there is sure enough a lengthy line of bikini clad beauties before it.
i also put slavegirl in tent, and instruct her to reject the ugly ones. ugliness is "mechanically testably alf 3.o" defined as "lacks third tit". end of day, my slavegirl's pretty downcast.
phf: goals and procedures inadvertently put the arbiter in the position of affirming that the goal has been or been not achieved but without following own procedures. in other words you want me to potentially call that the source has been leaked to google, but rely on a procedure that
i can't possibly consider adequate for the verification.
phf: asciilifeform: my thinking is that your goals ("didn't leak to google") ought to be separate from the testing procedures ("can buy from amazon in a month"). some of your goals are potentially untestable and it's up to whoever's doing independent verification to come up with the procedure for testing, or dismiss the goal as untestable. then up to you to either find a different arbiter, or agree not to pursue one of the goals.
i think that providing both
mircea_popescu: well looky,
i'm not trying to ruin your fun here, but if yo uwant me to try an follow along ima try as best
i can. so far, it's not taking me far.
mircea_popescu: so...
i can't imagine the problem you're trying tro approach even exists, which is why
i can't come up with a way to solve it.
mircea_popescu: anyway, your design is dysfunctional in that (even allowing for it modelling somewhat close to reality, which
i have no faith it does) suppose today someone gives you a working pill, and june 27th google patches the hole. and the someone says "dood,
i have nfi,
i honestly didn't tell anyone anything".
mircea_popescu: but back to it :
i see the value in taking a magic marker to the outside track of google's "drm".
i do not see the value in your hairebrained scheme to make a business out of it.
mircea_popescu:
i think you conflate economics and coolness. for one thing, an original trinitron bought the year sony came out with them was like 5k ? or some shit like that. for the other thing, 1k from 1988 is like 10-15k today. so...
i don't see the $100k price tag that'd merely cover inflation.
mircea_popescu:
i bet you
i could, if
i wanted to. there's plenty of old crap here.
mircea_popescu:
i think
i have one right here. from ~period. it's a workhorse, sure, and it paid for itself many times over, but...
☟︎ phf: asciilifeform:
i'm up for a job of contest arbiter,
i don't think that what you're proposing is arbitration.
i thought that you're going to give goals, and it's up to me to evaluate if the goals have been achieved. but you want me to merely verify your procedure. that's fine, but that doesn't make me an arbitrator.
phf:
http://btcbase.org/log/2018-06-13#1824502 << right. it's also not a good idea for an arbiter to sign someone else's exam, as if it's anything but.
i've offered to run the proposed experiments without arbitrating, but that's not what ascii wants.
☝︎ a111: Logged on 2018-06-12 23:39 asciilifeform: phf: you will test using your c101pa. and so you will need the debug snake,
i will need to put the output of sysinfo , ver , brd , etc cr50 console commands into the statement.
a111: Logged on 2018-06-13 00:16 asciilifeform:
i'm not about to ask mircea_popescu to buy us 500 boxes prior to discovery of pill.
mircea_popescu: note however that practice is alligned : when you protested (essentially) that the tits thing is being exam-took,
i ignored it, specifically because... it was specified!
mircea_popescu: but
i'm not doing it, am
i ?
i dunno how
i'd do it ;
i'm also not against exercising the doing it muscle, but commetary is part and parcel of the exercising.
a111: Logged on 2018-06-13 00:07 phf: yes, but if you are going to establish a procedure why do you need an arbitrator, or in other words,
i don't see a point of separate arbitrator if the process is your own
mircea_popescu: wtf is this world coming to.
i just vented a few m3 into the biodiversidad
phf: asciilifeform:
i see,
i'm sorry, but
i don't think
i can properly be called a referee under these conditions.
i can do independent testing for you though,
i.e. test against current c101pa, and against one that
i purchase at a time you indicate.