mersenneforum.org Less than 10,000 left....
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2009-08-31, 13:56 #276 RichD     Sep 2008 Kansas C6A16 Posts Badgers v. Wolverines I might just have it figured out. Are Michigan and Wisconsin in the same conference?
2009-08-31, 14:54   #277

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

160248 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by retina cheesehead, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You've failed to notice the difference between the situations you compare. I'm not contradicting myself or being inconsistent.

Briefly: In one case, people care about their own work and assignments. In the other, people are assuming proprietorship over other people's work and assignments.

Quote:
 If you argue that some people care about credits
... their own credits ...

Quote:
 (which is fine by itself) then you have to also accept that other people care about the perceived lack of advancement.
They can care, but have no right to extend that to controlling what isn't assigned to them.

Quote:
 People care above different things.
... and some people want to control other people, but other people don't like being controlled that way.

Quote:
 You could at least acknowledge that others might care about things you don't, since you did argue to me that I should accept that others care about things that I don't.
I don't recall where I ever declared that Kevin or anyone else was not allowed to care about "stragglers". (Can you show us otherwise?) I just said he didn't have the right to "prod" those folks, which is taking action. I recommended restraining ones desire to control others inappropriately.

Quote:
 You completely dismissed Kevin's concern as not important.
Not important enough to justify interfering with someone else's assignment -- no, especially when he's never presented evidence (other than his own feelings) to justify his desire to do so.

Quote:
 Why would Kevin's concern about advancement of low exponents be any less important than accumulation of credit?
Because of the difference between minding one's own business and exerting power over others' actions, that's why.

Quote:
 cheesehead, you argued that poaching is harmful to the project as a whole by saying that people get upset if their exponent is poached. Why can you not accept that others can get upset if the lower region is not being cleared fast enough? Quid pro quo.
Did you try very hard to see the difference between the two?

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2009-08-31 at 14:55

2009-08-31, 14:54   #278
Kevin

Aug 2002
Ann Arbor, MI

433 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Brian-E There's nothing super-secret about it. The regular automatic updates give the percentage from start to completion of the work unit so far. You can see it as part of the line in the prime.log file which reads something like "...&p=44.4750..." . As cheesehead has already indicated, the administrators have the progress-information available on all outstanding work units (except those which are not updating, and these units are canceled and re-assigned after a certain period of tolerance), and they will most certainly have the situation under control as part of the normal running of the project.
It's super-secret in the sense that we no longer have public access to that information. I guess it's fine as long as the project administrators can see what's progress is being made and make an informed decision when the time comes, but I certainly appreciated the transparency of the old system.

And FWIW, Michigan and Wisconsin are in the same conference, but Wisconsin is pretty far down on the list of schools we especially care about.

Also, I like how I have backed off the position of "prodding" people, indicated I only meant perhaps people on the forum that would be receptive to requests for such status updates and even then we don't need to bother if certain people are going to throw hissy fits, and yet that's still the main argument being used against me. When for the past however long I've only been talking about modifications to the assignment system, and repeatedly indicated that it would in no way affect people's current assignments or ever infringe upon people's assignments once made*. Classy.

*Slight correction. I did propose that perhaps preferred exponents should be able to be reassigned after a slightly shorter timeframe than one year, because something taking longer than 6 months seems to indicate abuse/circumvention of the preferred exponent system. The Horror.

Last fiddled with by Kevin on 2009-08-31 at 15:11

2009-08-31, 15:14   #279

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

11100000101002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Kevin What harm was being done to justify adding the P4 minimum requirements/preferred exponents assignment system? It's precisely the same situation of attempting to prevent the trailing edge from lagging without preventing people from doing the work-type they want.
As with retina, you seem not to have noticed the difference between the two, although you are asking from a somewhat different direction than he did.

(It seems to me that this question is essentially the same as the bafflement you expressed in post #244, so I'll presume, unless you say otherwise, that my answer to the question here also answers that one, which I left hanging in post #247.)

Yes, the concern over "straggling" assignees did lead to the assignment limits to which you refer. However, 1) those are passive limits which don't extend to active monitoring of progress, and 2) they are defaults, which can be gotten around by those with a strong desire to do that worktype and who will faithfully keep the progress going in a manner which satisfies the system administrators' tolerance but whose systems don't meet the P4 minimum. Your proposal is to actively monitor progress and, importantly, apply your own more impatient standards instead of the admins' standards.

Quote:
 As you surely know, the situations I've mentioned lead to people attempting to poach exponents (along with other issues which you refuse to accept
It's not that I don't accept those issues insofar as you express your feelings; it's that I don't accept that anyone but admins should be taking action to interfere (your word was "prod") with the assignments of others.

Quote:
 What harm would come from implementing what I suggested?
You (and others) would be given more information to use in "prodding" others. But you don't deserve that information, because "prodding" is not a proper thing for you (or others) to do.

Your postings clearly show that you would not resist the temptation to "prod" those you personally deemed "too slow".

2009-08-31, 15:33   #280

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

160248 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Kevin I guess it's fine as long as the project administrators can see what's progress is being made and make an informed decision when the time comes,
... which they can.

Quote:
 but I certainly appreciated the transparency of the old system.
... which some people would abuse as you and others, previously, suggested.

Quote:
 Also, I like how I have backed off the position of "prodding" people,
IIRC without having actually looked back, this is the first time you've written "prod" or a variation of it since you first proposed doing it (if it could be done politely). So your backing-off was not very explicit, and it certainly was grudging.

Quote:
 I only meant perhaps people on the forum that would be receptive to requests for such status updates and even then we don't need to bother if certain people are going to throw hissy fits, and yet that's still the main argument being used against me.
... because you've never actually disowned the earlier positions you espoused. You've just kept gradually moderating your postings, but without ever coming straight out and discarding your early proposals. You've worded your posts in such a way as to avoid actually going on record that you've changed your mind.

Even now, you "like how [you] have backed off the position of 'prodding' people" -- instead of saying you've changed your mind and you won't "prod", you simply congratulate yourself on having backed off without ever really showing that your attitude has changed. Yes, it was a skillful retreat -- but not a sincere one as far as I can tell.

Quote:
 When for the past however long I've only been talking about modifications to the assignment system, and repeatedly indicated that it would in no way affect people's current assignments or ever infringe upon people's assignments once made*. Classy.
"Classy" would be a straightforward, sincere, abandonment of your inappropriate proposals. Your weaseling-out doesn't yet qualify.

Quote:
 *Slight correction. I did propose that perhaps preferred exponents should be able to be reassigned after a slightly shorter timeframe than one year, because something taking longer than 6 months seems to indicate abuse/circumvention of the preferred exponent system. The Horror.
Since a frontal assault to get you information to impose your impatience hasn't worked yet, you're switching to seemingly more-reasonable incremental proposals. If you were granted this one, then in a little while, you'd propose another creeping-up, and so on, and so on.

You haven't shown any change in attitude.

 2009-08-31, 16:04 #281 Kevin     Aug 2002 Ann Arbor, MI 433 Posts Done with this thread, and I guess the whole forum for a while. No point in taking an active interest in the project if I'm just going to get shouted down.
2009-09-01, 05:20   #282

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·599 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Kevin Done with this thread, and I guess the whole forum for a while. No point in taking an active interest in the project if I'm just going to get shouted down.
Manipulative to the end, you play the martyr card rather than admit that it has been only your persistent proposals to interfere with other folks' assignments that I criticized.

 2009-09-01, 05:23 #283 petrw1 1976 Toyota Corona years forever!     "Wayne" Nov 2006 Saskatchewan, Canada 22×1,117 Posts Sept 1 Code: 27M: 2 28M: 45 29M: 7 30M: 34 31M: 83 (me 9) 32M: 137 (me 7) 33M: 30 (me 1) ======= TOT: 338 27 Days Elapsed and 165 more completions. Down to 6 per day.
 2009-10-21, 18:42 #284 petrw1 1976 Toyota Corona years forever!     "Wayne" Nov 2006 Saskatchewan, Canada 22·1,117 Posts Oct 21 update and ... I'm done My last <10M digit LL completed a few days ago while I was away. 128 in total and almost 4,000 Ghz Days Code: The Project itself now has: (change since Sept 1) 27M: 2 (0) 28M: 15 (-30) 29M: 4 (-3) 30M: 18 (-16) 31M: 38 (-45) 32M: 75 (-62) 33M: 17 (-13) ======= TOT: 169 (-169) flukey ... exactly half = 50% in 50 days 50 more days would take us to December 9th ... year end completion is still a nice possibility. Last fiddled with by petrw1 on 2009-10-21 at 18:43
2009-10-21, 18:50   #285
henryzz
Just call me Henry

"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

34·71 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by petrw1 TOT: 169 (-169) flukey ... exactly half = 50% in 50 days[/code]50 more days would take us to December 9th ... year end completion is still a nice possibility.
i very much doubt it
i reckon it wont be completed up to 10M digits until at least half way through next year

2009-10-21, 22:06   #286
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!

"Wayne"
Nov 2006

22×1,117 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by henryzz i very much doubt it i reckon it wont be completed up to 10M digits until at least half way through next year
I tend to agree but the new rule of preferred assignments to proven hardware has made a noticeable difference. I suspect most will be done by year end and a few slow running ones into the first half of next year.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ATH Software 13 2012-09-30 07:19 firejuggler Aliquot Sequences 5 2012-02-09 11:02 Flatlander Science & Technology 3 2011-09-22 11:19 Mini-Geek No Prime Left Behind 52 2011-09-12 06:27 gd_barnes Lounge 0 2008-01-21 09:05

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:13.

Sun Nov 29 07:13:19 UTC 2020 up 80 days, 4:24, 3 users, load averages: 0.61, 0.83, 1.02