Pandora Wi-Fi On 350kilobytes/s


Status
Not open for further replies.
Monk said:
EvilDragon said:
But I'm too tired to discuss anything anymore. Sorry.

I really should leave the boards for a while, they don't do me any good.

Ah - hit and run eh? Great.
For ... sake, Monk... this is not winning you any favours...

ED, I do think that you need a proper vacation. I don't think this is doing you any good, either. To be honest, I started getting worried back when you began using smilies in every post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
javaJake said:
By the way, if I am reading correctly, I noted that everyone seemed to calm down near the end. Congrats to the community for keeping the discussion somewhat civil, even if it got heated. :)

It usually does that if someone isn't ACTUALLY just stirring the pot - or unless/until someone comes along and stirs it up again. Which seems spiteful to me (I'm not saying that YOU are being spiteful).

mali said:
To be fair, you are quoting me out of context, Monk ;)

Stretched, but not to breaking point, if only because I note that, as expected, others are "comign to ED's rescue" to be puzzled and pull apart what I've said with "I don't see how you could think that" and so on.

mali said:
And Craig compared it to the gp2x battery meter, iirc.

He also actually compared it to Intel - as a specific example he said:

craigix said:
The battery life is accurate, and I think people with MK0 machines will confirm that. That is an area we are really hot on. It is where ARM kicks intel in the balls.

Now to me, and possibly only me, that says that the Pandora battery meter should somehow be better than the average x86 battery meter. I've asked how/why this is the case as the explanations I have seen sugegst that the Pandora battery meter is as good as or worse than an x86 battery meter, and ED has gone of in a sulk for being bullied, while others rally around to protect him. A massive "HUH?" from me.

craigix said:
The battery life is accurate, and I think people with MK0 machines will confirm that. That is an area we are really hot on. It is where ARM kicks intel in the balls.

Esn said:
For ... sake, Monk... this is not winning you any favours...

Please, do me no favours. To be honest, I had hoped to be as big a dick as ED claims I've been, to hold a mirror up to him, but I'm not convinced I can be arsed - especially since he's had his cheap shot and then run off. Stuff it. The Pandora project isn't worth this level of shit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What a horrible thread. I want to punch it in the nads and watch it keel over.
 
This forum is great for learning colloquial expressions for certain body parts. And very often related activities, too. All in all a great English learning experience.
 
Well it has become pretty hot here in this forum again.
Personally i seem only to read the forum now a days with no replies(well except this comment).
I get misunderstood ore burned by overly sensitive fans and even OP members.
I was one of the people who thought that Pandora had real vapourware potential and i also said that i would love to be proven wrong.
Well we all know now i have been been wrong and i am happy about that.
Never the less Pandora is not out of danger it still has belly up potential.O boy i will get barbecued again for saying something negative.
The Pandora has been in short mass production and then went to a halt no more part.
Well this is a real joke it must be thous Chinese again right?
Well No not really.
Well i will just say there is another hick-up and people including Op getting very impatient.
I for one lost my interest for now keeping only a look on Pandora from the corners of my eyes.
Two years ago the Pandora had massive potential now it declined a lot for me.
I still keep an eye on it and my interest can come back it now all depends on the software and if there will be a second and third batch.
But for me to order one Op need to be able to produce much faster than they do now and i see a problem coming up in that department.
As long as the Pandora's will not start flying out of the production hall to the customer.
And Info will be lacking ore wrong/untruthfully spoken ore even been wrongly read there will be a barbecue parties (flaming).

PS no flaming intended here but just my two cents.
Have a nice day:)
 
Okidoki, let's make it easy.

Wifi goes here:
http://www.gp32x.de/board/index.php?/topic/54340-post-your-speed-over-wifi/

Battery goes here:
http://www.gp32x.de/board/index.php?/topic/54195-ed-craigix-mweston-anyone/

Communication goes here:
http://www.gp32x.de/board/index.php?/topic/54348-pandora-production-progress/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Monk said:
craigix said:
The battery life is accurate, and I think people with MK0 machines will confirm that. That is an area we are really hot on. It is where ARM kicks intel in the balls.

Esn said:
For ... sake, Monk... this is not winning you any favours...

Please, do me no favours. To be honest, I had hoped to be as big a dick as ED claims I've been, to hold a mirror up to him, but I'm not convinced I can be arsed - especially since he's had his cheap shot and then run off. Stuff it. The Pandora project isn't worth this level of shit.
No, I think you succeeded quite well, if that makes you feel any better. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - you may not be doing it intentionally, but because you don't understand people (note: this is not an insult). i.e. I think that you're completely misreading ED.

Monk said:
EvilDragon said:
So how the heck can a battery be more accurate? The system picks up what you're currently doing and updates the time left.

The only thing to make a proper accurate battery meter was to ALWAYS run the system with full load, full brightness and WiFi on.

You really do try to twist around every thing I say to prove the world I am a vindictive liar, don't you? Which is not pleasant.

Nowhere in his post did ED do any such thing. What part of the post made you think he did?

Monk said:
I didn't know how your battery meter was going to be better than both Intel-based battery meters and GPH battery tech, but I assumed from Craig's enthusiastic outburst/s on-forum that it did a bit more than simply picking up what you're currently doing RIGHT NOW and estimating from that. That is certainly a form of accuracy, assuming it's good at it, but it's not really more useful than the most conservative estimate of running everything at full power, is it?

How to be MORE ACCURATE? Well, if the battery meter kept a log of user behaviour - if it profiled battery usage behaviour, as some meters supposedly do, then that would be more "usefully" accurate wouldn't it? I must admit that I assumed the meter did that, or something else "clever", when Craig was reporting how great the battery meter was. Otherwise I'm a bit flummoxed about how the battery meter was such a big deal. Hence my confusion. Hence the question.

1) You should know better by now than to "assume" that Craig meant something very specific when all he did was post a statement that could be interpreted in different ways.

2) Apparently, you think that the battery meter should measure "average usage", so if let's say I spend 8 hours listening to music, then switch to CPU-intensive emulation, extrapolating on my past usage it will show me more hours than are actually left. I think that your idea is bad, and that the current way that it works is much more sensible.

P.S. cixelsyd, I think you're more-or-less right... unfortunately, it looks like, regardless of how high Pandora units go for on eBay (average price seems to be $1500), there are one or more major bottlenecks that are preventing OpenPandora from making systems any faster than they currently are. I, too, think that a Christmas-delivered "batch 2" of another several thousand units is far from ideal, but it looks like there's nothing to be done about it. I'd love to be proven wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi All

My 2 cents - two things occur to me reading this thread:

1. Perspective helps, but is easily lost. Personally, I've never got worked up over a battery meter, and hope I never will :p And if you're waiting for a Pandora, rest assured, it will arrive.

2. ED is a great guy - unbelievably patient, he's literally a Saint, I don't know he does it. He's been busting his balls to get this done, and doing an admirable job responding on these boards. He's done something most of us wouldn't have the balls to do - invested a large part of his life in this project at no doubt considerable personal risk. So respect where it is due, and cut the guy some slack - it seems to me any slur on ED will be perceived by most as an indictment on the writer, and not ED.

Cheers and beers
Simon
 
This is going to be a big fat post, going all theory of communication on a lot of things. If you're easily bored, skip it by all means, but if you're Monk, please read it. It starts off in the Monk vs ED on WIFI, but it goes further later on.

ED is stressed, and no longer has the time/energy to write out the obvious points. Monk, by stress or by feeling "attacked", strike down upon the "obvious" missing. From one point, it is obvious than ED is "wrong" - Of course, a bigger device crappily built would possibly be worse at WIFI reception. That is selfevident. Which, to ED, means that it is so obvious it needs not be mentioned, and to you is an obvious fault of EDs point. To avoid this, he'd have to write that a bigger device always has the potential of better wifi reception, or that an optimally built bigger device always...and so on. Lets make a more obvious (and therefore, more slanted) example:

A)
1: A bigger bucket always can contain more water than a smaller bucket.
2: No! If I drill a hole 5 cm from the bottom of the bigger one, it will hold a lot less water!
1: Well, yes, that is obvious. A bigger bucket without holes...
2: Now your just fixing the story! You were just plain wrong - admit it

...or another example:

B )
1: This car will run 500 km on 20 liters of gas
2: No! As soon as I get out on the road, the consumption rises so I can barely get more than 150 km out of 20 liters!
1: Well, yes, that is obvious. This car will run 500 km on 20 liters of gas at speeds below 20 km/h...
2: Now your just fixing the story! You were just plain wrong - admit it

These two examples are obviously slanted in two different directions, in order to be very clear. First, look at example A. Would it be fair, in this case, to think that the person number 2 is being unreasonable, is twisting words around to make person number 1 appear a liar? Would it be reasonable, in this case, for person number 1 to feel attacked? I think so.

Then, example B. This is the opposite. At least I would say that in this case, person 2 is reasonable, person 1 is saying false things or at least is trying to hide very important facts and conditions. It might even be reasonable to call person number 1 an untrustworthy weasel. Anybody agree?

Now, this is a problem with obvious things - they are not obvious to everybody. If we'd like to go all academic on this, we might start talking about "shared contexts" and how the communication involved fails because it does not convey enough context in order to render the context common to all parties. We also have several axises here - One where we varies the actual amount of information needed in order to make that context common (I.E. Be more thorough in listing all presuppositions, "obvious" facts, relations to earlier statements and so on). Another is the question of malicious intent in persons 1 and 2. In the A version, 2 is the bad one. In the B version, 1.

So, given that we see that the problem here is one of non-shared contexts, where do we place the little issue with wifi strength (or, really, any of the later hot blasts of air) on a scale of A to B? Obviously, ED thinks it is close to A. He said something which wasn't precise enough to convey all possible context, Monk called him out on a obvious thing, and goes on to pester him about being wrong. Monk thinks it is closer to B - That Monk points out an actual, real flaw in EDs argument, and that ED is trying to weasel himself out for no other reason than to be a weasel. Monk is upset about EDs conversion to ferretdom. My personal opinion os closer to EDs than Monks in this case, but I am aware that both positions are easy to get into. They are also hard to get out of, because of the inherent moral blame given from both sides. After all, both sides are accusing the other side of being wilfully dishonest, basically.

Similar things goes with the battery thing, where the missing piece to start off with is the exact intended function of the meter. With the queue positions, where the missing pieces are the actual relations between queue numbers and produced pandoras. Heck, even with Craigs tweets, which everyone berates for being wilfully obscure. They are, of course, not, but they depend on the context that only Craig has.

The problem arises because there are a lot of very "informationskåta" - any swedish people want to help me with that one? :D - Lets see...People are very hungry for information. Therefore, people try to wring as much meaning out of every little statement, and tries to build a context out of separate pieces. However, the information needed to make that shared, unambigous context isn't there, different people assume different things, we get a context breakdown, and then the general mistrust is let loose. We can see the beginnings of that already in the thread called "Pandora Production information" or whatever, where apparently there is some kind of chart and already someone goes "Wait, does that include the 200 being built or not? It must" "No, my reading of the forum clearly indicates that...". Assumptions. It will end in tears, again, of course.

How does one prevent this problem? Well, there is two ways:

Write more context: Well, just once and for all write whats up, eh? This is the gist of the general cry at the forums - "We need just a quick update". Well, we do get quick updates, and they are not enough. In order to avoid the above problem, there needs to be thorough, unambigous information from a single source that for each piece of information clearly states the underlying assumptions, the intended goals...in short, every information update needs to make sure that everybody shares the same context. Achieving a shared context is hard enough face to face, with people you know and trust. In a way, every normal conversation is an attempt to bring two persons contexts in sync, and we use very sophisticated cues in body language and other feedback in order to adjust, repeat and modify our statements on-the-fly. Here we're talking about creating a shared context for hundreds of people from wildly different social and linguistics backgrounds. Doing that is seriously hard work. Timeconsuming and difficult. Big companies and government agencies have departments that deal only with managing information. For OPT, to try this way would mean that the person doing the information would do just that, and nothing else. ED complained in another thread that he had had to delay hotfix 3 because of a load of forum bickering, and Monk kinda sneered at that, but that is, indeed, true. Never mind whether ED tries to create a unified context before the fact (by writing really well thought out blog posts and other informational releases) or after the fact (by trying to put out fires in the forums) - If he is to be responsible for the shared context, he won't have time for nothing else. Srsly.

Add more trust: There is another axis on there, and that is the level of trust. After all, the only reason that we got in this mess to start off with in both case A and case B is that the persons involved did not trust the other one to "do their best", communicationswise. Monk is angry with ED because he believes ED is being dishonest with his information. ED is angry with Monk because he believes Monk is dishonest with his motives. And with the belief of dishonesty (or "lack of trust") comes the accusations, pointing at quotes, and so on, and it is a downwards spiral from there. Break that. Assume that the other person is doing his best. Monk made a very nice speech directed at ED to do just that - He just forgot to turn the mirror around and look in it himself, too. Assume that the ambiguities that arise - And that will arise, until OPT is big enough to have their own information management departmend - are the effects of a lack of context, not a conscious effort to deceive. This, of course directed both at ED and Monk, as well as the rest of the boards.

That, really, is the gist of it. The level of information needed to have a clear, unambigous view of whatever is not forthcoming from OPT, not with less than that core people stop working on the actual pandora. In a way it is almost a Heisenberg thing - You can now exactly where your pandora is, or it can be moving towards you, but not both at the same time :)

I probably lost track somewhere in the middle of this. Still, I believe there is something important in the above text. Somewhere.
 
Now that was one hell of a post! :blink:

I'm going to steal bits and pieces of that and use it elsewhere, pretty interesting stuff you've written there, would've like to have read this even if I didn't order a Pandora.

I think it's time for a grouphug now.
 
EvilDragon said:
I really should leave the boards for a while, they don't do me any good.
Actually I'm thinking about this too. It's hard to believe how much time goes to waste here reading threads like this, all that could go to something productive (which includes rest/sleep). I can't keep up with all the noise that's produced here anyway..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
notaz said:
EvilDragon said:
I really should leave the boards for a while, they don't do me any good.
Actually I'm thinking about this too. It's hard to believe how much time goes to waste here reading threads like this, all that could go to something productive (which includes rest/sleep). I can't keep up with all the noise that's produced here anyway..
I think you should. It would be better for everyone. The OPT could concentrate on building pandoras/fixing bugs etc. I know I wouldn't listen to all this crap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moxie, I'm not a communications major, but what you're saying has been my theory of how things work for a while now... it's why I tend to not get angry, and assume that many disagreements can be boiled down to people having different ideas of what words mean.

Let's say "God". Countless wars have been fought over that one... Or "justice". But there are many, many, smaller examples, too.

So the thing to do in any disagreement is try to find out where your ideas of the world, and your opponent's, disagree. Sometimes you'll find fundamental disagreements, but more often you'll find that you didn't understand each other.

Thank you for taking the time to lay it out in a way that's logical and easy to follow.
 
Moxie said:
I probably lost track somewhere in the middle of this. Still, I believe there is something important in the above text. Somewhere.
Oh, it's easy. There's a monk somewhere confronting, in his opinion, an evil, lying dragon. He goes "Huh" at the audience/populace because a lot of them side with the evil dragon, claiming the monk is actually evil and lying.

...History repeating, I guess. There must be a story like this somewhen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Esn said:
Moxie, I'm not a communications major, but what you're saying has been my theory of how things work for a while now... it's why I tend to not get angry, and assume that many disagreements can be boiled down to people having different ideas of what words mean.

Let's say "God". Countless wars have been fought over that one... Or "justice". But there are many, many, smaller examples, too.

So the thing to do in any disagreement is try to find out where your ideas of the world, and your opponent's, disagree. Sometimes you'll find fundamental disagreements, but more often you'll find that you didn't understand each other.

Thank you for taking the time to lay it out in a way that's logical and easy to follow.

Heh - What you describe is actually more or less the (popular version of the) analytical school of philosophy - Bertrand Russel, Austin, the early Wittgenstein. Philosophical problems arise because of ambiguities of our language. When we clarify those ambiguities, the problems will disappear :)

/the Philosophy major
 
Last edited by a moderator:
j.pickens said:
How's the WiFi doing, with reference to Craigx's tweet?
The tweet is quite old - this thread was bumped. It was made before units were being built and shipped.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top