It is currently Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:17 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:16 am
Posts: 580
I had proof, you had "because I say so", so of course I'm going to believe the proof, no matter the person saying otherwise.

In this case my proof was wrong indeed, but to prove or disprove something it's not enough to say "it is so". Even if you have 20 years experience, I will still expect hard proof instead of believing you blindly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:12 am
Posts: 6437
Location: UK (temporarily)
And that's what I meant by humility.

Assuming that you're infallible. You're not. No one is. Assuming you couldn't make a mistake. Assuming that your model was accurate. It wasn't just me telling you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:16 am
Posts: 580
It's not about the fact the proof was mine, it's about proof over words. Had the proof been by anyone else, I would still have believed it over anyone's words, after running it and witnessing the results.

If there's hard proof the sky is blue, and you get a sky expert telling you it is green, are you going to believe the expert without proof?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:12 am
Posts: 6437
Location: UK (temporarily)
Strained metaphor, much?

Your proof was based on faulty assumptions. Your evidence that /IRQ was asserted at pixel 315 had more in common with proving that a soccer pitch was 86 meters long because you assumed that your measuring tape was accurate. When we pointed out that the rule book said "it's 100m", you denied it, and ultimately required that I go and find your measuring tape and show that it wasn't trustworthy.

Your proof wasn't "hard". It was about as squishy as possible. But you assumed it was correct and when someone told you you were wrong you didn't reevaluate your assumptions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 12:49 pm 
Offline
Formerly Fx3
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:59 pm
Posts: 3075
Location: Brazil
I'm sorry lidnariq for the recent trouble, really. I though that such MMC3 information was well-known and... trivial. :oops:
I never stopped development on RockNES, and it's the only one still alive in 20 years (1998-2018).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:12 am
Posts: 6437
Location: UK (temporarily)
It's ok!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:49 am
Posts: 1917
Location: WhereverIparkIt, USA
I'm no scientist, but one experimental result does not equal proof...

_________________
If you're gonna play the Game Boy, you gotta learn to play it right. -Kenny Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19221
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
One experimental result may, however, provide proof that a budget for a properly designed experiment is desirable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:16 am
Posts: 580
lidnariq wrote:
Your proof wasn't "hard". It was about as squishy as possible. But you assumed it was correct and when someone told you you were wrong you didn't reevaluate your assumptions.

Says who? I checked my calculations after those posts, and found they were correct. I also checked the Scrolling page, and found no indication the effect would be delayed (this is now fixed thanks to tepples). At that point, I indeed expect proof. It is not an insult to your authority that I expect proof, when I have proof showing otherwise.

Quote:
ultimately required that I go and find your measuring tape and show that it wasn't trustworthy.
That's how proof works. It can only be overridden by better proof. Why is that an issue to you?

edit: mention the scrolling page.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:12 am
Posts: 6437
Location: UK (temporarily)
Well, rather than insisting that you were infallible, you could have instead posted the source and asked politely what was wrong. That would have same the same end result without being combative.

Do you really not understand why I'm harping on humility? It's not like this is the first time that your demeanor of "I'm the smartest most infallible human and everyone else is an idiot" has annoyed me; it's just the first time where I knew it was trivially wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:16 am
Posts: 580
Yes, I could have worded it better, I agree.

I see why it bothers you, though in others it does not bother me in the least. I will try to write more politely.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group