Nouveau Gets Thermal Throttling, One Step Closer For GTX 900 Re-Clocking

[schmidtbag]

And this statement shows how you keep failing to understand people.

Likewise.

I've just seen what true complex shit is. I've seen things... lol.

Gee, what a useful statement. I guess we all have to take your word for it?

Even a trained monkey can maintain a car or assemble a PC, as it is simple stuff. That's stuff designed from the ground up to be maintainable by humans with limited info available.

I said fix, not maintain. You should know the difference. Also, I'm sure many owners of brands like BMW, Mercedes, and Ferrari would greatly disagree with you.

Now try go fixing a crypto algorithm, find what is wrong in an electronic board design, or find out why some car needs two or even three key turns to start up (and it's not because of battery or ignition issues, real life stuff, I have one, I'm not stupid) and tell me if your "intuition" helps.

I think this is a testament to how you don't understand what duby229 and others were saying. Having an intuition to something doesn't mean you automatically know what the solution is, it means you have a good idea of how to approach it without having to think much about it. The act of actually executing that approach could take a lot of effort, but that's a step beyond this. Intuitive people are still allowed to be wrong.

You used basic reasoning without knowing it, probably. If you don't know how the engine works in a very basic way and that cables carry electricity and all basic stuff most modern day people know already, you would not be able to do anything.

If we're talking about something like replacing spark plugs then sure, it doesn't take a genius to follow a maintenance schedule or realize that their engine is misfiring. But when you have an actual problem where you're uncertain of the cause, basic knowledge isn't going to get you far. You need to have the skills to understand how a diagnostic process works, and not everyone has that.

I repeat, try to go fix something you don't have enough understanding of. That's where reasoning can't help for sure, and tell me if your "intuition" comes to the rescue.

I have, you just prefer to assume the worst in everyone, because pessimism is the only thing that drives you.
As for me, I have fixed many things where I went in blind. Examples:
I have managed to make my car's fog lights turn on independently (where they were controlled by the BIU to only turn on when the headlights are on).
I managed to diagnose and fix a physically damaged PC with power issues so it would turn on with full reliability, and without making any physical changes.
I have fixed an expensive laser printer I have never worked with where it had streaks of missing parts of the image, without having to replace any parts - it is still working today.
Despite never taking a math class more advanced than pre-calc, I have created my own equation for trilateration (with the caveat that it only works with right triangles).
I "accidentally" created the complimentary filter when trying to program an IMU without even realizing it until I was done.
These are just a few examples of things I managed to accomplish striclty though reasoning. I didn't have [enough] resources to help me.

Here's what I don't get though: If you insist you're right about your claims, how does anything ever get invented or innovated? How do developers just simply know how to fix bugs that they never encountered? How do you think archeologists came to understand stuff like the Baghdad Battery or The Antikythera Mechanism? It takes more than just expertise and pre-knowledge to solve a problem.

Huh? I thought they were just very good and focused programmers.

Sure, many times that is the case. I'm just telling you it isn't 100% of cases. I'd say John Nash is a good example of this. Math was how he solved things, but it was his intuition and natural ability to see patterns where others couldn't that led him to his discoveries, like Game Theory. If what you are suggesting was absolute, he wouldn't have discovered that.

So yeah, those people in the crypto field were very fucking good at math.

Never seen people like this on really complex stuff. Sure there are people that have more innate skill in some areas, but without training and experience they don't go beyond the "handyman" level.

Yes, those who created various forms of encryption (such as Nash) are "very fucking good at math". But those who decrypt can't depend on strictly math. This guy is a good example of someone who is beyond "handyman level":

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/z43z9j/sega-saturn-cracked

[bug77]

You can't use your intuition to improve a domain you know nothing about. It's that simple.
What you can do is use your wits trained in various domains and apply it when learning a new domain. But since cryptography is nothing like hand-reading, there's literally no way a random idea can turn the domain on its head.

[starshipeleven]

Gee, what a useful statement. I guess we all have to take your word for it?

I already made examples in my post, but since you can't read, I'll state another: I had major issues designing something as relatively simple as a lithium battery controller and custom battery charger. I got away with it because I found pre-made modules I could just assemble.

I said fix, not maintain. You should know the difference. Also, I'm sure many owners of brands like BMW, Mercedes, and Ferrari would greatly disagree with you.

I said maintain, because "fix" is not usually doable if you don't know what you're doing and don't have significant tooling, and I assumed you meant that instead. Maintain is fixing simple stuff like finding electrical shorts or changing broken parts that are easy to remove as the designers took care of making it relatively doable (like candles/injectors) or whatever and doing normal maintenance.

Fixing requires a specialist with tools and experience. Like say fixing anything internal of the engine itself, or working on the chassis, or troubleshooting an issue in the car's electronic control board.

I think this is a testament to how you don't understand what duby229 and others were saying. Having an intuition to something doesn't mean you automatically know what the solution is, it means you have a good idea of how to approach it without having to think much about it.

And I said that it is most effective in fields you know about, as it is still the brain that does evaluations on its own, not unlike when you eyeball distances or throw rocks.

On other fields it is far less effective, as I said my IT "intuition" that allows me to fix PCs and misbehaving programs almost magically is useless when I need to troubleshoot electronics or design a board, and I fall back to my "handyman" reasoning.

But when you have an actual problem where you're uncertain of the cause, basic knowledge isn't going to get you far. You need to have the skills to understand how a diagnostic process works, and not everyone has that.

Any person with a normal intelligence knows how a diagnostic process works, it's not even hard.

The issue is understanding the field enough to correlate cause and effect inside the parts you are looking at. As if you don't know what the parts do, then you can just go random, but it is very inefficient.

But you're so good that you never ever faced that, probably. I did. Many times at my job I open devices that I am unable to understand enough to fix, or that I understand enough to know that there is little I can do at all.

These are just a few examples of things I managed to accomplish striclty though reasoning. I didn't have [enough] resources to help me.

FYI: reasoning != intuition.

As I said, you must have applied some reverse-engineering to figure out the cause-effect relationships between the parts so you could think about what was wrong and how to change it.

I'm not going to believe you just opened the object with no idea of what it was at all, a blank mind and an idea happened and you followed it. You might not be aware of how your mind works maybe, but that's your own issue.

Also something you got done by sheer luck, that's again not intuition.

Here's what I don't get though: If you insist you're right about your claims, how does anything ever get invented or innovated?

Three ways mainly:
-"easy" one is taking solutions or approaches from another field and adapting them for your own situation
-"hard" one is trying and adapting your solutions after feedback from experiments until some stick (ala Edison), time consuming.
-plain luck, like for Penicillin and Dynamite, among others, or the person has some innate skill that allows him to be better at that particular job (I say it is luck as it is something you are born with, usually)

Sure, many times that is the case. I'm just telling you it isn't 100% of cases. I'd say John Nash is a good example of this. Math was how he solved things, but it was his intuition and natural ability to see patterns where others couldn't that led him to his discoveries, like Game Theory. If what you are suggesting was absolute, he wouldn't have discovered that.

He was able to see things others could not, that's an innate skill, not intuition. Intuition is getting info without no idea of where it came from. If you see stuff, then it's clear where it came from.
So, "plain luck" from above.

Yes, those who created various forms of encryption (such as Nash) are "very fucking good at math". But those who decrypt can't depend on strictly math.

And I already said that. In pretty much all cracking the algorithm is never busted.
What is busted is the program, or the hardware implementing it. And that means a hacker needs to be a good programmer, as he isn't attacking the math, but the software.

People in crypto field are those that know mostly math as they need to design a good algorithm that is both secure and light enough on the hardware.

[starshipeleven]

You can't use your intuition to improve a domain you know nothing about. It's that simple.
What you can do is use your wits trained in various domains and apply it when learning a new domain. But since cryptography is nothing like hand-reading, there's literally no way a random idea can turn the domain on its head.

fixed (I believe this is genuinely a typo, please confirm)

[schmidtbag]

I already made examples in my post, but since you can't read, I'll state another: I had major issues designing something as relatively simple as a lithium battery controller and custom battery charger. I got away with it because I found pre-made modules I could just assemble.

That only speaks to your skills, not anybody else's.

I said maintain, because "fix" is not usually doable if you don't know what you're doing and don't have significant tooling, and I assumed you meant that instead. Maintain is fixing simple stuff like finding electrical shorts or changing broken parts that are easy to remove as the designers took care of making it relatively doable (like candles/injectors) or whatever and doing normal maintenance.

Actually, it is plenty doable, but as stated before, it takes a certain mind to do it. Look up how Cubans live and their cars if you want good examples of this. Even for the ones who know what they'e doing, they don't have the resources to do it. So, they have to resort to alternative means. It isn't unheard of to see cars there powered by sewing machines.

Fixing requires a specialist with tools and experience. Like say fixing anything internal of the engine itself, or working on the chassis, or troubleshooting an issue in the car's electronic control board.

No, it really doesn't.

And I said that it is most effective in fields you know about, as it is still the brain that does evaluations on its own, not unlike when you eyeball distances or throw rocks.

On other fields it is far less effective, as I said my IT "intuition" that allows me to fix PCs and misbehaving programs almost magically is useless when I need to troubleshoot electronics or design a board, and I fall back to my "handyman" reasoning.

You're already contradicting yourself - "most effective" is not the same thing as "fixing requires a specialist". The fact that you can't use your IT intuition for other non-PC related issues does not mean nobody can do that. I've already given examples of people who are beyond "handyman", yet aren't experts in whatever it is they have successfully worked in.

Any person with a normal intelligence knows how a diagnostic process works, it's not even hard.

I'm not sure you work in IT - any legitimate IT worker knows how incapable the average person is of properly diagnosing their problems, let alone failing to do so. I kid you not, the most recent PC advice I gave someone was "have you tried plugging it into the wall?" (and yes, it wasn't plugged in all the way).
You're right - knowing how to diagnose something isn't that hard, but you are giving the average person way too much credit. That's not to undermine them, because many of them have skills you and I don't and never will have.

Many times at my job I open devices that I am unable to understand enough to fix, or that I understand enough to know that there is little I can do at all.

The inverse can also be said - you can fully understand something but not know how to fix it, even if you're aware a fix is realistic. This isn't as absolute as you're making it out to be. It's fine for even the most experienced people to give up or not know how to do something. I'm not saying people who have an inate ability to solve problems can solve all problems they set their mind to. My only point is some people are better problem solvers than others and often (but not always) are capable of solving problems outside their expertise.

As I said, you must have applied some reverse-engineering to figure out the cause-effect relationships between the parts so you could think about what was wrong and how to change it.

I did, but that doesn't change the fact that I would be deemed unqualified to work on these things. I didn't know what I was getting into and I didn't know where to look. So yes, reasoning isn't intuition, but intuition can (for some people in some situations) be a contributing factor for the reasons developed.

I'm not going to believe you just opened the object with no idea of what it was at all, a blank mind and an idea happened and you followed it. You might not be aware of how your mind works maybe, but that's your own issue.

It's not that black and white. Obviously I don't go into things 100% blind, but I often go into things under-prepared. Most of the time, I don't even have a complete vocabulary of what I'm working on. I literally have fixed things where I still don't know what the word was for them.

Also something you got done by sheer luck, that's again not intuition.

It's not luck when you have a gut feeling (or intuition) that you're going in the right direction. What's luck is hitting the device out of frustration and then suddenly it works, or doing something unrelated and the problem goes away.

-"easy" one is taking solutions or approaches from another field and adapting them for your own situation
-"hard" one is trying and adapting your solutions after feedback from experiments until some stick (ala Edison), time consuming.

- The "easy" one doesn't work according to things you said earlier. You said you can't take your IT knowledge and apply it elsewhere, so how is someone supposed to take their current knowledge and adapt it to a foreign situation?
- The "hard" one caters to my point. Edison (and Tesla) didn't know enough about what they were doing at first, because information on electricity at the time was pretty much non-existent. They developed their knowledge as they went along, which increased once they got the gist of how things worked. Despite them both not fully understanding how electricity worked, they had the intution as to where to go next. Tesla wasn't done trying new ideas by the time he died. He didn't literally know what else he could do with electricity, but his intuition was right - there was more out there.

He was able to see things others could not, that's an innate skill, not intuition. Intuition is getting info without no idea of where it came from. If you see stuff, then it's clear where it came from.

Depending on which definition you're looking at, I can see where you're going with all of this now. But I was thinking more along the lines of definitions 1 and 2a:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intuition

[bug77]

fixed (I believe this is genuinely a typo, please confirm)

Fixed. Obvious typo.

[duby229]

starshipeleven You do realize what the premise of problem solving is right? Don't have a hammer? Use a rock. Don't have a rope? Use some sapling barks. Obviously.

[starshipeleven]

starshipeleven You do realize what the premise of problem solving is right? Don't have a hammer? Use a rock. Don't have a rope? Use some sapling barks. Obviously.

I'm just saying that this is reasoning, not intuition.
If you don't have a hammer you quickly think "what is the most important thing for a hammer" -> "it is heavy and strong" -> "find heavy and strong objects".

This is reasoning, not intuition. Logical process.

[duby229]

I'm just saying that this is reasoning, not intuition.
If you don't have a hammer you quickly think "what is the most important thing for a hammer" -> "it is heavy and strong" -> "find heavy and strong objects".

This is reasoning, not intuition. Logical process.

Intuition is a logical process. You do realize your brain is a biochemical neural network right? Thinking outside of the box is an absolute requirement when you are trying to solve a problem that you don't know how to, or that you don't have the tools to solve.

[starshipeleven]

That only speaks to your skills, not anybody else's.

It was an example of yourself facing a situation where you don't have any training AND is complex enough.

Actually, it is plenty doable, but as stated before, it takes a certain mind to do it. Look up how Cubans live and their cars if you want good examples of this. Even for the ones who know what they'e doing, they don't have the resources to do it. So, they have to resort to alternative means. It isn't unheard of to see cars there powered by sewing machines.

Yo, that's '50s technology. Level of complexity is not comparable with modern stuff. Electro-mechanical systems at best with massive tolerances. Now it's great fun with electronics running the show and razor-thin tolerances because of better understanding and physics simulations.

For example back then in WWII people converted their cars to work on wood gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas and it worked fine as the engines were crude as fuck and would handle that just fine. Modern engines.... not as easy, especially if they use electrical injection.

It would be like comparing Roman Empire buildings with modern stuff. Huge tolerances, simple designs.

You're already contradicting yourself - "most effective" is not the same thing as "fixing requires a specialist". The fact that you can't use your IT intuition for other non-PC related issues does not mean nobody can do that. I've already given examples of people who are beyond "handyman", yet aren't experts in whatever it is they have successfully worked in.

No you did not. All examples are still within what I can do too (maybe not the math one).

I'm not sure you work in IT - any legitimate IT worker knows how incapable the average person is of properly diagnosing their problems,

I'm usually disregarding the average person because I don't regard dumbfucks as people at all. Does this attitude show that I've had enough exposure to idiots? I hope so.

You're right - knowing how to diagnose something isn't that hard, but you are giving the average person way too much credit. That's not to undermine them, because many of them have skills you and I don't and never will have.

Wrong. Most are just dumb bovines that exist only to let someone else rip them off. Some are specialists in other fields, sure, but most are just stupid.

The inverse can also be said - you can fully understand something but not know how to fix it, even if you're aware a fix is realistic.

Nope, if I understand it and a fix is realistic then the only thing that can stop me is the cost (time/and replacement parts).
"Find faulty part and replace it" works. If I can't find original replacements I can hack together something, or cannibalize parts from something else.

Again assuming the fix is possible at all (the part can be replaced at all).

My only point is some people are better problem solvers than others and often (but not always) are capable of solving problems outside their expertise.

And what I'm saying is that these people are "handymen", far better than a commoner, but their problem solving capability is still not enough to be better than specialists, nor to stand out as pinnacles of mankind.

I did, but that doesn't change the fact that I would be deemed unqualified to work on these things. I didn't know what I was getting into and I didn't know where to look. So yes, reasoning isn't intuition, but intuition can (for some people in some situations) be a contributing factor for the reasons developed.

I would call that more luck than anything else.
If you don't know you start the default reverse-engineering procedure of "removing random piece and seeing what happens", and eventually figure out how stuff works (this is kinda slow, biology/medical research is doing this most of the time).

Guessing at random isn't better than that. But are you sure it is truly guessing and not some kind of reasoning?

It's not that black and white. Obviously I don't go into things 100% blind, but I often go into things under-prepared. Most of the time, I don't even have a complete vocabulary of what I'm working on. I literally have fixed things where I still don't know what the word was for them.

Common also in my job.

It's not luck when you have a gut feeling (or intuition) that you're going in the right direction. What's luck is hitting the device out of frustration and then suddenly it works, or doing something unrelated and the problem goes away.

And again, this intuition still comes from your own experience. So it's far less effective outside of fields you know well.

- The "easy" one doesn't work according to things you said earlier. You said you can't take your IT knowledge and apply it elsewhere, so how is someone supposed to take their current knowledge and adapt it to a foreign situation?

If some fields share some similarity, then this can be done. If the person manages to find the points the two fields have in common, then they can try to adapt the strategies to the new field.

Despite them both not fully understanding how electricity worked, they had the intution as to where to go next.

Uhm... learning from trial and error isn't intuition. Ever heard about engineers studying disasters to find out what happened so the company or nation or whatever could fix the issue that caused it? That's still reasoning, logic.

Tesla wasn't done trying new ideas by the time he died. He didn't literally know what else he could do with electricity, but his intuition was right - there was more out there.

tesla worked on fundamentally flawed assumptions and theories with no kind of fact-checking (this is the main issue, not scientific approach), that by chance were good enough for alternated current. And that's where he made the only interesting stuff that we use nowadays. And yes I read his stuff, he was plain wrong on so much stuff that it isn't even funny.

Depending on which definition you're looking at, I can see where you're going with all of this now. But I was thinking more along the lines of definitions 1 and 2a:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intuition

Hm, then you call "intuition" very fast reasoning too then? I would avoid that as it causes confusion.