Originally posted by coder
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
CompuLab Turns An 8-Core/16-Thread Xeon, 64GB RAM, NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Into Fan-Less Computer
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by danmcgrew View PostIn your case, particularly, nothing is too good for you.
So, thanks for that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostThat's assuming they're doing what you say as you say it, which you don't have proof of.
And here I thought you said you weren't making assumptions?
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostWho the hell gets emotional over an OEM workstation that they never got their hands on yet?
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostWhy do I need to? They clearly know what they're doing.
I jest, but you have a simplistic view of consumer behavior that I don't share.
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostUm.... I definitely did not ever say people couldn't buy this. I explicitly said I have no right to tell people what to do in my last post.
If I know a person isn't going to do a thing, then it really makes no difference whether I tell them not to. If you're so sure nobody else is going to buy it, then it's of no consequence whether you feel a right to tell them. So, even though you're not telling them, by your earlier assertions, you're rendering the point moot.
It's a bit like the contradiction between omniscience and free will. By presuming you know how someone will behave, you're assuming they have no free will to do otherwise. Then, by not providing data for them to make a decision on grounds that you don't accept they might have, you're influencing their actions in the case that you're wrong.
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostOnce again, you just interpret things the way you want to.
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostAs you continue to exemplify your poor reading comprehension,, I was saying how you don't realize any of it.
I don't know how you decided that was my point of view, but I was simply pointing out that it's not one I stated or that logically follows from any of my statements.
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostI was saying how you don't realize any of it.
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostBecause I also agree knowing the performance is important, just not critical for this PC.
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostAnd of course you don't presume other people's priorities are - you're ignoring them.Last edited by coder; 24 July 2019, 12:56 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by coder View PostYou have a very specific idea of who's buying it and why. They might like to know that, as it would have to be based on a lot of market research for you to have such confidence. Or, maybe you're a marketing guru, in real life?
You have been very prescriptive about who buys this and why. That's tantamount to the same thing, as it presumes to know their priorities and value judgements.
If I know a person isn't going to do a thing, then it really makes no difference whether I tell them not to. If you're so sure nobody else is going to buy it, then it's of no consequence whether you feel a right to tell them. So, even though you're not telling them, by your earlier assertions, you're rendering the point moot.
None of that makes any sense. Your gripe is how you think I'm telling people what they should buy. I never said such a thing; I'm telling you who is most likely to care and what they care about. Whoever buys the product doesn't change any of that. So therefore, the only point here that is moot is your accusation of me.
It's a bit like the contradiction between omniscience and free will. By presuming you know how someone will behave, you're assuming they have no free will to do otherwise. Then, by not providing data for them to make a decision on grounds that you don't accept they might have, you're influencing their actions in the case that you're wrong.
Let's say the product being sold is a key-lime pie. People who buy that pie don't care about the calories or grams of fat in it. Not everyone likes the flavor. There are cheaper pastries available. So, a baker can safely assume that most people who buy that pie do so because they like that specific flavor and they don't care if it's unhealthy. So using your crappy logic, does that mean the baker is telling people what to buy? Is he retracting the free will of people? Is he omniscient of the decisions of those who want to buy the pie? No, because that's ridiculous. He's just a baker.
So, that was really a quoting issue. You were ascribing a view to me that it doesn't fit someone's needs, and then enumerating the possible needs. I was saying I never made a statement in line with the view you were ascribing - that it didn't fit someone's needs.
I don't know how you decided that was my point of view, but I was simply pointing out that it's not one I stated or that logically follows from any of my statements.
Do you really find it inconceivable that someone's purchasing decision might hinge on the relative performance data between this and another machine? If so, that's the point of irreconcilable difference.
Remember, there's no other PC quite like this one on the market. If you are at all uncertain about whether or not the performance is up to your specs, it probably isn't for you. You don't have another alternative to choose from (of similar specs, size, and noise level).
No... I respect them.Last edited by schmidtbag; 24 July 2019, 02:45 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostNo, I'm pointing out what is likely the largest demographic. That demographic does not share your priorities. Therefore, they're the ones who I'm primarily focused on.
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostThe only reason that's the case is because you continue to ignore that they're a large potential demographic.
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostNo, it isn't. Let's use a different scenario to exemplify how absurd your claims are:
Let's say the product being sold is a key-lime pie. People who buy that pie don't care about the calories or grams of fat in it. Not everyone likes the flavor. There are cheaper pastries available. So, a baker can safely assume that most people who buy that pie do so because they like that specific flavor and they don't care if it's unhealthy. So using your crappy logic, does that mean the baker is telling people what to buy? Is he retracting the free will of people? Is he omniscient of the decisions of those who want to buy the pie? No, because that's ridiculous. He's just a baker.
That's what you're saying. If you presume nobody is going to base purchasing decisions on performance data, then, by not providing that data, you're causing some people to make sub-optimal choices. Ironically, the better-engineered the product, the more it would actually work to your disadvantage.
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostShould I quote you from earlier posts?
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostYou made it seem like that was your point of view because you've stated repeatedly how you're suspicious that Michael is hiding something while complaining that there's no performance data.
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostBut if you truly acknowledged other people's needs, you'd realize those needs don't prioritize performance to the same degree you do, because they know they're making sacrifices for this very specific setup.
If we're talking about acknowledgement, then you should acknowledge that point of disagreement so we can move on.
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostOf course someone's purchasing decision can be affected by performance data. But if it that's the case for this PC, then they would look elsewhere.
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostIf that's what makes you feel better then go ahead and believe that.
If someone wants to buy a particular PC because it's pink, I respect their right to make that decision for that reason. I wouldn't do it, but maybe the case color is really important to to them and they're happier using a pretty PC than one which performs better or costs less.
Comment
Comment