old MSP wants to know what they did wrong
-
adjective
2.
telling or containing lies; deliberately untruthful; deceitful; false:
a lying report.
Synonyms: deceptive, misleading, mendacious, fallacious; sham, counterfeit. -
@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?
-
Nowhere in the definition of lying does it require that you know random extra facts. Misleading, deceit, sham, counterfeit... those apply to people intentionally misusing known terms, that someone knows the actual meaning of the term doesn't factor in, only that they use it as if they know it when they don't.
-
@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.
Yup, and it references far more than just the Sparcstation, as well as making mention of 1U servers.
Mention of how 1U was derived from pizza boxes, not that they are pizza boxes. It also specifically pointed out that pizza boxes were not 1U form factor but included 2U and non-standard sizes. Although the pizza boxes were the source of many of the standards. I made it VERY clear that it was a form factor reference and not solely about Sparcstations. The Wikipedia article follows exactly what I explained.
If it's about form factor, then what the heck are we arguing about? a pizzabox is a 1 or 2 U box. Period.. there's not need to imply that it's RISC based. Sure it started there, and morphed into what it is today.
As for your blade thing lying situation - Blades are codified, so that is pure lying when used to describe 1U rackmounted servers.
But pizzabox is not codified, so it's not the same. -
@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?
-
@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.
-
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
But pizzabox is not codified, so it's not the same.
BUt it is, why do you claim that it is not? What makes one codified and one not?
-
@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:
You are talking about intent, which doesn't apply here as my point is specifically that there was no intentional re-use, only accidental misuse and repetition.
And what makes you think there's an accidental misuse here?
I didn't say that, it was intentional misuse. Bluffing.
Well, if you were having conversations with people who were claiming they worked on pizzaboxes, and they KNEW that at one time the sparcstation was commonly referred to as the pizzabox, and they were trying to get you to think they worked on those when in fact they hadn't (which you figure out through conversation) then sure, they were lying - but, unless they further went on to say, yeah I know that some old timer's call the sparcstation a pizzabox, but I call a pizzabox any 1U rackmount server (if you actually heard someone say this - wow, just wow!)
-
Both are well understood and long known industry terms for specific things. No rackmount server made in decades uses a pizza box form factor. Misusing either term is wrong, equally. One is more recent, but that is all.
-
@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:
You are talking about intent, which doesn't apply here as my point is specifically that there was no intentional re-use, only accidental misuse and repetition.
And what makes you think there's an accidental misuse here?
I didn't say that, it was intentional misuse. Bluffing.
Well, if you were having conversations with people who were claiming they worked on pizzaboxes, and they KNEW that at one time the sparcstation was commonly referred to as the pizzabox,
YOu are totally caught on one thing... that people know the exact definition. That simply doesn't matter and I will repeat the problem to you no matter how many times you misstate it in that way. Knowing that it means Sparcstation or similar form factor simply doesn't matter. They knew it meant something, and they lied about it. Period.
You are trying to redefine lying to make guilty people sound innocent.
-
@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.ch -
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
But I never made that mistake (I've never seen a sparcstation in person, or ever had use of one, so they don't exist in my world). So my use isn't a mistake.
So you are saying that you were totally unaware that the nickname pizza box existed, you saw a 1U server, you determined you would make a new nickname and just happened to pick pizza box? You are confident you had no idea that there was such a name used in the industry?
No, that's not what I said -
- upon first hearing the term (I didn't make it up) I had never heard of a sparcstation, nor did I know that a sparcstation was referred to as a pizzabox (which makes since since I didn't know what a sparcstation even was).
- An IBM rep called this new ultra thin (1U) rackmounted server a pizzabox - henceforth it was a pizzabox to me.
- I have no idea if he knew what a sparcstation was or that it was nicknamed a pizzabox.
-
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
but, unless they further went on to say, yeah I know that some old timer's call the sparcstation a pizzabox, but I call a pizzabox any 1U rackmount server (if you actually heard someone say this - wow, just wow!)
This would not be lying, this would be explaining their redefinition of an existing term to display both knowledge AND to avoid lying.
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.
But if I say I worked on a pizza box while not knowing what a pizza box is, that's lying. Intent to deceive.
-
@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:
But I never made that mistake (I've never seen a sparcstation in person, or ever had use of one, so they don't exist in my world). So my use isn't a mistake.
So you are saying that you were totally unaware that the nickname pizza box existed, you saw a 1U server, you determined you would make a new nickname and just happened to pick pizza box? You are confident you had no idea that there was such a name used in the industry?
No, that's not what I said -
- upon first hearing the term (I didn't make it up) I had never heard of a sparcstation, nor did I know that a sparcstation was referred to as a pizzabox (which makes since since I didn't know what a sparcstation even was).
- An IBM rep called this new ultra thin (1U) rackmounted server a pizzabox - henceforth it was a pizzabox to me.
- I have no idea if he knew what a sparcstation was or that it was nicknamed a pizzabox.
Right. so that's COMPLETELY different. You are simply repeating the thing we talked about first... that someone was bluffing; then other people copied it. Of course lies get repeated. That doesn't make the new term correct or intentional, it remains the case that I stated - that someone misused the term as the source of the "new" nickname. You claim that your use isn't a mistake, but it is - it's just you repeating someone else's mistake. That doesn't make it not a mistake.
If you cheat on a test and you copy off of someone that gets an answer wrong, you still made a mistake on the test even if you were copying.
-
@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.
