Folding Forum

Viper97 wrote:Just a quick question Bruce...

How does one rationalize possibilities? Isn't that irrational in itself? Possibilities, probabilities, timelines cannot be rationalized.

Then again I'm a simple man.

True or False:
1) The PG must maximize science
2) The Donors must maximize points.

i.e. - What happens when maximizing points doesn't equal maximizing science?

ra·tion·al·ize
1. attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

That which is "true or appropriate" is subjective, depending on whether you accept 1 as true or 2 as true. hence the need to rationalize a perceived contradiction.

OK

Here is an idea to make EVERYONE happy.

Dr. panda has admitted that communication is a problem that needs to be addressed.
All the donors have agreed that they don't understand the rational for this announcement and would like clarification.
In fact, many are so unhappy with what they perceive, surmise, guess is the rational that they will leave.

This would be a great time to call a time out.
suspend the announcement(table it for further consideration)
After further review, the new communication director can attempt to effectively describe the plan and the reasons behind it.
At that time, it may end up being the same result, but the process will be vetted...people will understand it and will either accept or reject it on its merit...not based on best guesses, conjecture, tea leave readings.

I mentioned at the start of this thread that I thought the announcement was either flippant, or simply not thought out at all.

I understand that making a review, and communicating a compelling case for change takes time...time that researchers might well spend better.

Hence, simply table the announcement until further review and clarification by the new communication director sounds like the perfect solution.

Nothing like starting a new job jumping right into the thick of things.

bruce wrote: True or False:
1) The PG must maximize science
2) The Donors must maximize points.

i.e. - What happens when maximizing points doesn't equal maximizing science?

ra·tion·al·ize
1. attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

That which is "true or appropriate" is subjective, depending on whether you accept 1 as true or 2 as true. hence the need to rationalize a perceived contradiction.

Condescension alienates donors.

con•de•scen•sion
noun
1. 1.
an attitude of patronizing superiority; disdain.

al•ien•ate
verb
3rd person present: alienates
1. 1.
cause (someone) to feel isolated or estranged.

do•nor
noun
plural noun: donors
1. 1.
a person who donates something, esp. money to a fund or charity.

mdk777 wrote:OK

Here is an idea to make EVERYONE happy.
...
This would be a great time to call a time out.

As we don't come to a conclusion going into a discussion break seems a good idea; cooling down. But please keep the heat on the GPUs and CPUs and continue folding. Science don't need to suffer from our emotions ...

And dear mods; please keep it open ... in general this discussion is not bad to have.

mdk777 wrote:tea leave readings.

I drink mainly Matcha, powdered green tea. No leaves left in the cup ... I can't read anything from there

ChristianVirtual wrote:

mdk777 wrote:OK

Here is an idea to make EVERYONE happy.
...
This would be a great time to call a time out.

As we don't come to a conclusion going into a discussion break seems a good idea; cooling down. But please keep the heat on the GPUs and CPUs and continue folding. Science don't need to suffer from our emotions ...

And dear mods; please keep it open ... in general this discussion is not bad to have.

I support that idea. For those of you who have posted several times and done an adequate job of expressing your point of view, repeating yourself again won't be useful, so take a break. I'll leave it open for new ideas from folks who have not posted.

on a non emotional note.....
I think PG has forgotten that this cost people real money to do. electricity doesnt come cheap.
The BigADV thing encourages people to go out of their way to get better machines specifically for folding. NOT to just use their everyday parts.
most people cant afford a nice new $2000 set of server processors, but there was a big influx of opterons this year, which im sure added a ton of power to the cause.... (why i decided to do it xD )

this is going to alienate a lot of people, all over the web people are saying they're just going to stop folding, I wont personally, but this appears to be a bad decision.... shame

on an emotional note....

This is so upsetting, I'm sitting here, waiting for my 24 core 4p opteron project parts to get here, was finally going to try to do big adv, and I read this news. such a bummer. Guess I'll only use it for a few months and go back to my stinking gtx760, oh well.

this is what i get for not reading the news and trying to help out.

bah!

This is just my opinion: I don't "see" points as just competition. We are working on something inheriently intangible and not empirical. Points are my way of having some idea of the (hopefully) good I do for medical science. Yes I'm suffering since 15 Y.O. My diseases are last on anyones list but I want to help suffering ...period. I can build a house, re-model a house, carpet huge office buildings, Hulk Hogans, HomeDepots Southern manager, other celebrities homes. But folding? How can I "see" what I've done? I can't. I was lead to believe,and hoped points would tell me. What I don't understand is: My same hardware runs 24/7. So how is 1 project MORE important? I get bonuses for upgrading hardware. But why not points per hour? Some run few hours a day, I know. So bonuses for folders running 24/7 because F@H (know or should? ) their results be done soon. Why not "loyalty" points? I mean someone can run F@H 1 day a week and get all 8900's and 24/7 get 8018"s. I don"t get people saying why should I run my XXX hardware if I don't get the high paying WU's? Aren't we all here to stop suffering? I do "get" others human desire to be equal, I do. Just questions with no answer.

bruce wrote:

Viper97 wrote:Just a quick question Bruce...

How does one rationalize possibilities? Isn't that irrational in itself? Possibilities, probabilities, timelines cannot be rationalized.

Then again I'm a simple man.

True or False:
1) The PG must maximize science
2) The Donors must maximize points.

i.e. - What happens when maximizing points doesn't equal maximizing science?

ra·tion·al·ize
1. attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

That which is "true or appropriate" is subjective, depending on whether you accept 1 as true or 2 as true. hence the need to rationalize a perceived contradiction.

Well this most likely my last post here!!! Bruce Your a two faced sos. One post you ask for help with smp next you run down ones that will do them.You just did it for me 1 unit when I get up. LoL man its ! and 2 with out 2 you can not do one .I got this thing I hate fricken fan boys comes from gaming I guess.Get a grip on what we are trying to say.And when you do know what PG will say post other wise shout the up. Chow babehuuy
I would of built it but only if what I built would of lasted 6 months but realistic its 3 year per computer build then time to move on up to lower east side.

7im wrote:Again, FAH never recommends purchasing hardware just for folding ....

The old chestnut. Unfortunately, human nature is what it is - it's why people support F@H in the first place (that's a good thing right?), but it is also why people will, no matter how many times they are told not too, build machines specifically to run F@H (that's unavoidable).

I started folding because I was keen on the science and I still am. It is just unfortunate that the PG's PR has been, well, shaky. I am heartened that they are going to recruit a dedicated PR role, but as suggested elsewhere in the forums, I think they should get an economist's opinion on how best to implement a points system. To be honest, I don't care how it is done, as long as it serves the needs of the science and that PG clearly communicate why.

They've stated that donors shouldn't buy dedicated kit for folding but the current points system with QRB optimises for exactly that. I've seen others suggest a loyalty bonus. This might be a good way of reducing donor churn and in conjunction with a rationalized points scheme could be a winner. What we do know is that the current scheme is untenable as it stands.

All I can say is WOW. I started with human genome project (Is this how I F@H'ed? Don't know but been buying equipment for F@H EXCLUSIVELY for 13? years. Sounds like another cop-out? Like we changed our minds and we told you F@H is for SPARE cycles? (disclaimer) I realize if there wasn't a mystery in science we would already have all the answers? MORE consultants on payroll? That's what we need.Where I lived (Tampa bay) It took $285,000 for consultants to figure out if planes didn't fly over homes,instead flew over the bay (water) for approach-12 miles there be no noise aggravating people @ 11-6 A.M! Maybe? Stanford has excess money from success to spread around? to whom?

Guess this shows my "thought police" remark... TOTALLY unfounded!! I stand corrected......If a moderator will let YOU read my thoughts

rhavern wrote:I started folding because I was keen on the science and I still am. It is just unfortunate that the PG's PR has been, well, shaky. I am heartened that they are going to recruit a dedicated PR role, but as suggested elsewhere in the forums, I think they should get an economist's opinion on how best to implement a points system. To be honest, I don't care how it is done, as long as it serves the needs of the science and that PG clearly communicate why.

They've stated that donors shouldn't buy dedicated kit for folding but the current points system with QRB optimises for exactly that. I've seen others suggest a loyalty bonus. This might be a good way of reducing donor churn and in conjunction with a rationalized points scheme could be a winner. What we do know is that the current scheme is untenable as it stands.

So how CAN they have it both ways NO not at this time
How can you not have COMPUTERS BUILT JUST FOR YOU, LOL EVEN IF YOU JUST RUN GPU FOLDING NOW YOU CAN NO GaME ON YOUR COMPUTER. COULD BEEASIER IF YOU ONLY RAN SMP'SV THEN YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO PLAY

Yes donors should buy a dedicated folding kit. Unless of course FAH needs 48 cores... wait I use that every day at home! (Snarky comment intended).

It's a lost cause. Science is getting done but just not at FAH as much. WCG is good, BOINC is good. Less defenders of the realm there also.

My birthday was the other day... and you know what I got? An email from WCG wishing me a Happy Birthday. You know what I got for FAH? Nothing. Exactly what is being said and accomplished here beating the castle walls with our fists.

I've come to the conclusion that Folding and Computer Enthusiasts are a just a bad marriage. The Computer Enthusiasts (most Folders who are invested and care about this topic) have expectations that PG simply do not seem to understand. To tell these Enthusiasts that "you must be aware of the risks of investing large dollars in Folding equipment to do Bigadv", but expect them to take that risk in a vacuum is a recipe for the kind of disaster that continually befalls Bigadv Folders.

It would be better for Stanford to remove Bigadv from consumer Folding than to allow it to continue surprising and disappointing donors. Take Bigadv to large corporate machines (if you can get them) and put an end to this rolling madness of obsolescence for consumer donors. Most people just can't keep up with the cost to keep advancing with PG on Bigadv changes. You are already losing a lot of Bigadv Folders (myself included) who have had enough. All of my Folding equipment (Servers included) has been moved to World Community Grid and will likely stay there. It is not because I don't believe in "Folding" as a project. It is because I have become tired of the way Folding (from a donor perspective) is managed. You just can't treat Computer Enthusiasts as if they have unlimited pocket money to stay up with these significant Bigadv changes that obsolete the very hardware you have depended upon to accomplish the science. That is why I feel that you should just eliminate Bigadv or find a way (as WCG) has done to take advantage of computing (for Bigadv) in a wider flavor of equipment.