AMD making a fool of Threadripper customers - AGAIN?
- Thread starter NablaSquaredG
- Start date
Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.
I understand that as a very clear: YES it is possible.
So he did not dodge the question.
And you are wrong, there is or at least, should always be critical thinking involved.
You have apparently missed and not understood the point.
EDIT, swapped order:
First mistake:
Making those accusations in the first place knowing that it's not 100% certain.
That is called SLANDER.
Second mistake:
You stressed that only after making those extreme claims and accusations.
EDI:
I agree and try to adhere to it but i find it funny and infuriating that you are saying that.
Let me make another more extreme scenario to emphasize the issues i have with your accusations, proofs and reasoning.
Disclaimer, the following is not meant and just for demonstration purposes:
I am sure that in all of your life, you have or you could have committed a crime.
It is strictly speaking possible that you have committed a crime.
I, in all of our interaction have perceived you as suspicious.
With that i argue that you are a criminal!
Since it is possible that you committed a crime, that proves you to be a criminal.
EDIT i think i went a bit overboard with this one
EDIT
Looking at the scenarios, the are some glaring issues.
To explain what i mean by that.
To make myself perfectly clear.
I think you are a huge hypocrite and i associate "looking into the mirror" to mean that one should reflect upon them self and stop being hypocritical.
Maybe shades would protect you?
Last edited:
maybe i escalated a bit.
What does ITT mean ?
Maybe i'm more tired then i thought.
EDIT: sure am, so no more internet for me today.
Last edited:
I never that they are 100% certain, just suspect. I just post what I find, or claim I found those. Is it not allowed to provide anything that isn't 100% proving a certain fact, in a forum?
I think 90% of the posts need to be deleted if it is the case, because they voiced opinions that aren't objectively certain. Some of them are even learning in the process.
Think I didn't say it clearly. I mean I take his view as "possible". I'm only asking a question, and I'm not drawing a conclusion ONLY based on this question. And I'm not saying how big is the possibility. Actually, there is one other question I plan to ask, depending on the answer.
And how is sword's not answering at all, not dodging question.
As I said, it all starts with a simple sentence of a possibility and a logical inference. When I provided so many graphs and links, and defending myself from intentional misinterpretations, I don't think it's possible not to seem hypocritical. Most of my posts are spent answering questions.
Last edited:
It looks like that Sword does not bother answering even one question. Perhaps he already knows the loophole in his claims.
Let's ask the second question anyway.
There's two persons, A and B, and a crime that requires the collaboration of at least two persons. Let's say A has already been caught committing this crime several times, and he's doing his part of the said crime for B(although his actions alone may not be seen as this crime). Is it reasonable to suspect B is collaborating with A, and the whole collaboration is possibly a crime?
Let's make it even easier to understand with an example, proper or not depending on your point of view.
One person, A, was a known illegal drug dealer. He was caught after he shipped a package containing drugs to B. Is it reasonable to suspect B is also dealing or taking drugs?
Adding to this, we even know that the said package contains drugs. Of course it's possible that the drug is not listed as illegal for now, it's even possible that A was sending to the wrong address. But do these possibilities mean that B isn't likely to be involved, and no investigation is needed?
Answer: It's reasonable (Yes), or not reasonable (No).
I always wanted to make discussions less like a debate in a court, more about facts than reasoning, and I always leave room for others to back off thus reaching a common point. Because, when the debate heats up, it always becomes a competition of who can fool more people to join him, rather than who got more points. But I think this idea is no longer viable nowadays, especially in the region of CPU.
If I look like an intel fan, I must be the worst of them. I have spoken about way too many negative things in their designs, some are even unrealized by the public.
I don't even know why I'm here, it's not like I can bring PC/server diy to its former glorious days before 2018 by winning this debate. There were so many deep and juicy articles back then. Hard to find one now. I can even see how people would attack them.
Let's ask the second question anyway.
There's two persons, A and B, and a crime that requires the collaboration of at least two persons. Let's say A has already been caught committing this crime several times, and he's doing his part of the said crime for B(although his actions alone may not be seen as this crime). Is it reasonable to suspect B is collaborating with A, and the whole collaboration is possibly a crime?
Let's make it even easier to understand with an example, proper or not depending on your point of view.
One person, A, was a known illegal drug dealer. He was caught after he shipped a package containing drugs to B. Is it reasonable to suspect B is also dealing or taking drugs?
Adding to this, we even know that the said package contains drugs. Of course it's possible that the drug is not listed as illegal for now, it's even possible that A was sending to the wrong address. But do these possibilities mean that B isn't likely to be involved, and no investigation is needed?
Answer: It's reasonable (Yes), or not reasonable (No).
I always wanted to make discussions less like a debate in a court, more about facts than reasoning, and I always leave room for others to back off thus reaching a common point. Because, when the debate heats up, it always becomes a competition of who can fool more people to join him, rather than who got more points. But I think this idea is no longer viable nowadays, especially in the region of CPU.
If I look like an intel fan, I must be the worst of them. I have spoken about way too many negative things in their designs, some are even unrealized by the public.
I don't even know why I'm here, it's not like I can bring PC/server diy to its former glorious days before 2018 by winning this debate. There were so many deep and juicy articles back then. Hard to find one now. I can even see how people would attack them.
Last edited:
I didn’t answer because it has become a wasted effort discussing this topic with you. You do not not have coherent argument, your arguments themselves are flawed and based on feelings as you admitted, and generally there is no logic. You mistake my and others patience with pointing out to you the errors in your reasoning as some flame war. The fact we continued to engage with you means we are open to actual proof. Yet you never showed it, and finally admitted it was based on feelings. You even discounted contributions from an actual expert, one who is one of the devs of the very tool you claimed to benchmark with.
There’s a reason why minority views can’t break consensus. It’s because they are usually full of shit and can’t convince anyone. You admitted you’re an amateur. I’m not an amateur. I don’t have time for this. If you feel like I and others are inflicting “internet violence” on you just because you cannot give definite proof to your wild claims, which is the dumbest term, even in the native mainland Chinese meaning of it, then go ahead believe that. This will be my last reply in this thread. If you want to feel like you “won,” by all means be my guest. Shout it to the cities and the heavens. No one cares.
There’s a reason why minority views can’t break consensus. It’s because they are usually full of shit and can’t convince anyone. You admitted you’re an amateur. I’m not an amateur. I don’t have time for this. If you feel like I and others are inflicting “internet violence” on you just because you cannot give definite proof to your wild claims, which is the dumbest term, even in the native mainland Chinese meaning of it, then go ahead believe that. This will be my last reply in this thread. If you want to feel like you “won,” by all means be my guest. Shout it to the cities and the heavens. No one cares.
You don't need to talk about all this again, as you've talked like this for 5 pages. I have the same feeling as you too, yet I was still trying to answer the questions whose answers was so obvious and seemed to me like some amateur's talk.
Now answer these two questions, there is no reason not to do that. Except that you're trying to dodge the question, and afraid of the consequences that might be brought to you just by answering. You've been asking so many questions, drawing everyone to question me, without even trying to answer one. I also think it's a waste of time trying to reason with you, you have never showed anything to prove that you are actually superior, while I have shown a lot of tech stuffs people don't know. But things need to be solved in a perfectly logical way, as it's you who brought up the "logical fallacy".
And if there is none on your side, some simple "yes" and "No"s won't take a minute, especially less time consuming than the paragraphs that's full of misunderstandings you posted.
Attachments
Last edited:
Seems that you can't face any controversy about your reasoning at all. Here is the final piece of puzzle. 
If the definition of "evidence" in the dictionary isn't utterly wrong, it's saying that what was listed are not only evidence, but very GOOD evidence.
It's interesting to find that people who stress "reasoning" always step on their own foot.
And what's experiencing "coherence problem" is between what you thought and stressed again and again in order to convince yourself and others, and the fact that right after I listed the evidence, I said it's a very likely but not a 100% absolute proving process, and I've repeated this multiple time throughout the whole argument.
Not to mention you wanted to mix the concept of "fake proof" and "inadequate proof", if any of these existed.
And how many supporters you got, three? I think I got more, and they are outsiders that are not affected by this twisted argument.
And you are afraid to answer even one or two questions, because answering may lose you some of that three followers in the rigorous reasoning process.
This is pointless. People always said that you can't talk someone out of fandom. Fandom always cling on the slightest of hope and dare to question any legit stuff.
Starting a war and push all the responsibility to others? Thanks, I noted that.
Edit:
@gsrcrxsi @RageBone If you still believe what he want you to believe, that I'm claiming AMD 100% confirmed of doing these, look at posts 61 127 135 166 180(there are more that I don't think I need to find). I don't think I have not stressed my point enough. Creating a virtual enemy and fighting it is a common strategy, definately not good for reasoning, but it's really good with people who don't have time to check out.
Other than answering questions, I see most of my other posts are all saying "Hey, I didn't say that". Can't compete with dirty tricks/
If the definition of "evidence" in the dictionary isn't utterly wrong, it's saying that what was listed are not only evidence, but very GOOD evidence.
It's interesting to find that people who stress "reasoning" always step on their own foot.
And what's experiencing "coherence problem" is between what you thought and stressed again and again in order to convince yourself and others, and the fact that right after I listed the evidence, I said it's a very likely but not a 100% absolute proving process, and I've repeated this multiple time throughout the whole argument.
Not to mention you wanted to mix the concept of "fake proof" and "inadequate proof", if any of these existed.
Adolf Hitler would like this so much
And how many supporters you got, three? I think I got more, and they are outsiders that are not affected by this twisted argument.
And you are afraid to answer even one or two questions, because answering may lose you some of that three followers in the rigorous reasoning process.
This is pointless. People always said that you can't talk someone out of fandom. Fandom always cling on the slightest of hope and dare to question any legit stuff.
Starting a war and push all the responsibility to others? Thanks, I noted that.
Edit:
@gsrcrxsi @RageBone If you still believe what he want you to believe, that I'm claiming AMD 100% confirmed of doing these, look at posts 61 127 135 166 180(there are more that I don't think I need to find). I don't think I have not stressed my point enough. Creating a virtual enemy and fighting it is a common strategy, definately not good for reasoning, but it's really good with people who don't have time to check out.
Other than answering questions, I see most of my other posts are all saying "Hey, I didn't say that". Can't compete with dirty tricks/
Last edited:
look at the definition. Read it. Understand it. “The available body of facts”
you have not posted any FACTS that support the claim that AMD is responsible for any of the things you claim. You’ve posted your conspiracy theories and your own biased opinions. You’ve posted “facts” that have nothing directly to do with these claims. But no facts supporting AMD even “highly likely” of your claims. They are only highly likely in your opinion and it’s not strong enough to convince anyone else who doesn’t already hold the same biases as you.
What I listed are all Facts.
What are facts? Anything that actually happened are facts. And what I listed are all actually happened. Anything you are not certain, you can ask about it.
"AMD is responsible" is the logical inference I'm listing evidences to indicate, not facts that contributes to the evidence. Without this, those evidences still exist, although they may not be called evidences, due to the absence of point being proved.
Is it clear enough
That's why I say they misleaded a lot.
Last edited:
You post about cognitive bias but clearly do not recognize your own. You assume that AMD is out to get you and censor you and yet you spam logical fallacies without end. You have made up your mind and are trying to bend the evidence to fit.
Relevant or not, they are facts. No problem with that? One thing at a time. Mixing evidences and inferences always create disasters.
Relevance, or likelyhood, is discussed in the drug dealer example. I can't force people to think the same way, so I played it safe, only saying I have evidences in the first post. People think the way they like.
Last edited:
So... Threadripper?! Do you speak it?!
Will there be a new Threadripper Pro on the swrx8 platform or not? Will there be a new Threadripper on the strx4 platform or not?
Will there be a new Threadripper Pro on the swrx8 platform or not? Will there be a new Threadripper on the strx4 platform or not?
No one but AMD knows, they are just speculating. AMD has stated that it was a long term platform, but did not define what that meant to them.
It has "burned" people expecting a sooner upgrade, their options are.... AMD Milan if they can find them.
Intel hasn't exactly had a workstation answer to the 3990x. I myself was hoping for a Zen3 Threadripper build last fall and that hasn't come, my best guess was delayed for stacked cache or simple supply issues with Milan in super demand. They do have Supercomputer contracts to meet the dies we want for threadripper may be spoken for already.