old MSP wants to know what they did wrong
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
I would agree with this argument if the Sparcstation was officially named 'PizzaBox', but I can find no such indication. This is just a nickname given by those who used them
Exactly. And an accepted industry nickname is a specific thing. Knowing that there is a thing known in the industry as a pizza box and then calling something else a pizza box knowing you didn't use the thing accepted by that reference is intentionally lying. That's how nicknames / aliases / references work.
There is no exact definition of mainframe either. But if you claim you worked on one because you now call your laptop a mainframe, that's lying.
This would only be true in the case of those who knew what a sparcstation is and knew that it was called a pizzabox - something I didn't until after I joined SW.
No, that's where you are completely wrong. It's true in any case where someone knew that the term existed. It doesn't matter if they know what it means. Using a term knowing you don't know what it is is lying. If I asked you if you've ever flown a starship before and you didn't know what a starship was and said yes is lying, as plain and plain can be. Not knowing what a starship is is in no way whatsoever relevant to the fact that you fabricated the answer.
Of course that's correct - your answering about something you have no clue about.
that's not the case in my example - I KNEW what a pizzabox was - it was a 1U rackmount server.
In your example, the person has NO CLUE whatsoever what a starship is... so that's a lie. in my case I absolutely would swear on a bible in court that a pizzabox was a 1U rackmount server, and a pollygraph would say I'm telling the truth.
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
If I said "I've worked on a pizza box; that means a 1U server, right?"... that is not lying because I am supplying the name AND providing the reference that I am using. It might be the wrong use of the term, but I am providing the underlying definition. There is no deceit.
If they neglected to qualify the statement by verifying the definition that you are meaning, that still does not equal deception. Oversight and misunderstanding do not equal lies.
-
Or... you are a bomb technician. You cut the "safe" wire because you were told that the green wire was safe by someone that was told that the green wire was safe who had someone just make up that green was safe because they were pretending to be a bomb expert. Are you still going to blow up? Yes.
-
@travisdh1 said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@coliver said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@travisdh1 said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@coliver said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@travisdh1 said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@art_of_shred said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza_box_form_factor
It's even got an official encyclopedia entry. This is NOT something one can just make up and hope no one notices.
Oh, and please don't confuse Wikipedia with an official encyclopedia.
It's the MOST official encyclopedia. Don't confuse "paid publications" with the world's most peer reviewed resource.
Yet it's known to get the real science behind global warming completely wrong. All the known mistakes and purposeful fabrications are still published.
Plus that article did a horrible job of actually describing the form factor
Citation? The global warming and climate change articles are one of the most sourced and peer reviewed articles on wikipedia. It's right up there with evolution.
Ever actually read the IPCC report?
Yes, I'm not sure what you're getting at?
The indices and actual science don't match up with what is claimed by the politicians that ended up writing the thing. They even tell you as much if you read their documents.
Hundreds of leading experts in the different areas covered by IPCC reports volunteer their time
and expertise as Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors to produce these assessments.
Many hundreds more are involved in drafting specific contributions as Contributing Authors and
commenting on chapters as Expert Reviewers 1.
Ref: ipcc.chThe IPCC was written by scientist, as you've mentioned, who are volunteers they aren't politicians unless you consider all volunteers politicians. The report has gone through some rigorous peer review and has, for the most part aside from some editorial errors, been accepted as a meta-review of the current state of the science related to climate change. You've yet to cite a location in the IPCC or the wikipedia article that supports your claim. Other then calling out the authors as "politicians".
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
t they don't know what it is. Then claiming to own one, know how to use one, have worked on one or whatever is clearly lying. In
agreed, that is lying. but me calling it one is not lying, because I do know what it is as previously stated.
-
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
that's not the case in my example - I KNEW what a pizzabox was - it was a 1U rackmount server.
No, you KNEW that someone who had it WRONG thought it was that. Your answer was still wrong. Not intentional, so not lying, but still wrong. Having a bad source doesn't make false information correct.
-
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
t they don't know what it is. Then claiming to own one, know how to use one, have worked on one or whatever is clearly lying. In
agreed, that is lying. but me calling it one is not lying, because I do know what it is as previously stated.
Agreed, it's not lying, but it is from a lie. It's a lie repeated when you didn't know it was a lie. So a lie remains the source of the nickname, which is what keeps it from being possible to consider it a valid new nickname for a 1U server. Your repeating it is not a lie because you had no intent, but now in the future if you said it, obviously it would then be lying.
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
If it's about form factor, then what the heck are we arguing about? a pizzabox is a 1 or 2 U box.
Well, that's wrong. Pizzaboxes did not use Us. Us came from pizza boxes. It's not the same. And the current 1u/2u form factors used today are not pizza boxes. We are arguing about people misusing the term; and mostly for doing so deceitfully for personal gain.
I guess it must just be the circles you run in, anyone I know that talks about pizzaboxes is talking about 1U rackmountable server, and they are not trying to deceive me about their level of knowledge.
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
Or... you are a bomb technician. You cut the "safe" wire because you were told that the green wire was safe by someone that was told that the green wire was safe who had someone just make up that green was safe because they were pretending to be a bomb expert. Are you still going to blow up? Yes.
If you're a smart bomb tech, you make sure you ask which one they mean when they "safe", before you cut anything. People might tend to be a bit more flippant when asked "have you worked on a pizza box?", and justifiably so.
-
@art_of_shred said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
If I said "I've worked on a pizza box; that means a 1U server, right?"... that is not lying because I am supplying the name AND providing the reference that I am using. It might be the wrong use of the term, but I am providing the underlying definition. There is no deceit.
If they neglected to qualify the statement by verifying the definition that you are meaning, that still does not equal deception. Oversight and misunderstanding do not equal lies.
It does actually. If they know that the term exists, which they know from the context of the sentence alone, and they answer knowing that they answered something without believing it to be true, they lied. If they did so by mistake, that's one thing (got distracted, forgot to provide definition) but you can't assume all blatant lies are just accidents.
-
@art_of_shred said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
Or... you are a bomb technician. You cut the "safe" wire because you were told that the green wire was safe by someone that was told that the green wire was safe who had someone just make up that green was safe because they were pretending to be a bomb expert. Are you still going to blow up? Yes.
If you're a smart bomb tech, you make sure you ask which one they mean when they "safe", before you cut anything. People might tend to be a bit more flippant when asked "have you worked on a pizza box?", and justifiably so.
But he DID ask, you see. Because it is a chain of repetition, but the source was a lie. No matter how much verification you do, if the source is a lie, the bomb goes off. Bombs don't submit to your "it was an oversight" excuse, they just blow up.
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@art_of_shred said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
If I said "I've worked on a pizza box; that means a 1U server, right?"... that is not lying because I am supplying the name AND providing the reference that I am using. It might be the wrong use of the term, but I am providing the underlying definition. There is no deceit.
If they neglected to qualify the statement by verifying the definition that you are meaning, that still does not equal deception. Oversight and misunderstanding do not equal lies.
It does actually. If they know that the term exists, which they know from the context of the sentence alone, and they answer knowing that they answered something without believing it to be true, they lied. If they did so by mistake, that's one thing (got distracted, forgot to provide definition) but you can't assume all blatant lies are just accidents.
And you can't just assume all accidents are blatant lies.
-
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
If it's about form factor, then what the heck are we arguing about? a pizzabox is a 1 or 2 U box.
Well, that's wrong. Pizzaboxes did not use Us. Us came from pizza boxes. It's not the same. And the current 1u/2u form factors used today are not pizza boxes. We are arguing about people misusing the term; and mostly for doing so deceitfully for personal gain.
I guess it must just be the circles you run in, anyone I know that talks about pizzaboxes is talking about 1U rackmountable server, and they are not trying to deceive me about their level of knowledge.
Sure, as expected, as you work in the SMB and the sources for that stuff is pretty common the same things like SW where those lies are blatant and repeated - even after being corrected. You are missing the point of the source.
-
@art_of_shred said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@art_of_shred said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
If I said "I've worked on a pizza box; that means a 1U server, right?"... that is not lying because I am supplying the name AND providing the reference that I am using. It might be the wrong use of the term, but I am providing the underlying definition. There is no deceit.
If they neglected to qualify the statement by verifying the definition that you are meaning, that still does not equal deception. Oversight and misunderstanding do not equal lies.
It does actually. If they know that the term exists, which they know from the context of the sentence alone, and they answer knowing that they answered something without believing it to be true, they lied. If they did so by mistake, that's one thing (got distracted, forgot to provide definition) but you can't assume all blatant lies are just accidents.
And you can't just assume all accidents are blatant lies.
No, but obvious lies should never be given the expectation of accident. Lies that have no reason to assume accident and do have obvious personal gain must be considered lies.
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
that's not the case in my example - I KNEW what a pizzabox was - it was a 1U rackmount server.
No, you KNEW that someone who had it WRONG thought it was that. Your answer was still wrong. Not intentional, so not lying, but still wrong. Having a bad source doesn't make false information correct.
No, assuming I accept your premise, I know that NOW, I didn't know it then.
-
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
and they are not trying to deceive me about their level of knowledge.
No one said that they were. It is that their SOURCE was deceiving them (or someone) and they are repeating that lie.
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
t they don't know what it is. Then claiming to own one, know how to use one, have worked on one or whatever is clearly lying. In
agreed, that is lying. but me calling it one is not lying, because I do know what it is as previously stated.
Agreed, it's not lying, but it is from a lie. It's a lie repeated when you didn't know it was a lie. So a lie remains the source of the nickname, which is what keeps it from being possible to consider it a valid new nickname for a 1U server. Your repeating it is not a lie because you had no intent, but now in the future if you said it, obviously it would then be lying.
Only if I accept your premise. If we had some IBM documentation where IBM themselves called the 1U server a pizzabox, would that change your option? Would it then in your eyes qualify as a new use of the term?
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
and they are not trying to deceive me about their level of knowledge.
No one said that they were. It is that their SOURCE was deceiving them (or someone) and they are repeating that lie.
And their SOURCE might be their mentor, or fifty people down the chain. My point is that the origination of it, the point at which 1Us started to be called pizza boxes, is something I've seen a few times and it was blatantly deceit when it was done for the intent to mislead and then people repeated it, a lot. Are those the only originations of it, unlikely, are they the common model? Certainly. It's a bit ridiculous to think otherwise. The term was so well known and started at the time that it started to be misused, in the context of time, it's incredibly obvious the progression of the name.
-
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
t they don't know what it is. Then claiming to own one, know how to use one, have worked on one or whatever is clearly lying. In
agreed, that is lying. but me calling it one is not lying, because I do know what it is as previously stated.
Agreed, it's not lying, but it is from a lie. It's a lie repeated when you didn't know it was a lie. So a lie remains the source of the nickname, which is what keeps it from being possible to consider it a valid new nickname for a 1U server. Your repeating it is not a lie because you had no intent, but now in the future if you said it, obviously it would then be lying.
Only if I accept your premise. If we had some IBM documentation where IBM themselves called the 1U server a pizzabox, would that change your option? Would it then in your eyes qualify as a new use of the term?
Not in the slightest. Why do you think that it would? We have documentation of people creating the pizza box lie already, that it is a documented lie doesn't reduce the lie.
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@art_of_shred said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
If I said "I've worked on a pizza box; that means a 1U server, right?"... that is not lying because I am supplying the name AND providing the reference that I am using. It might be the wrong use of the term, but I am providing the underlying definition. There is no deceit.
If they neglected to qualify the statement by verifying the definition that you are meaning, that still does not equal deception. Oversight and misunderstanding do not equal lies.
It does actually. If they know that the term exists, which they know from the context of the sentence alone, and they answer knowing that they answered something without believing it to be true, they lied. If they did so by mistake, that's one thing (got distracted, forgot to provide definition) but you can't assume all blatant lies are just accidents.
again, this assumes they are trying to lie, which I don't believe that most people when talking about a pizzabox are doing - they honestly believe that a pizzabox is a 1 U rackmount server.
