ASUS Killing AREZ brand? ROG is Back? *UPDATED ARTICLE*

[laminutederire]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

what facts?  Please link me to the evidence that makes your appraisal a fact.

Exactly, you require facts to validate your hypothesis. Given we don't have any facts, you cant validate and thus you can't claim one is better than the other.

Well  Nvidia cancelled it haven't they? That's one fact.

 

They gave motive for GPP on transparency. That's factually incoherent with their own practices: see 1030, 1050,1060 and Titan X variants where there are ambiguities on the branding of different cards. Do I need to provide you with actual proof of that as well even it's pretty well documented already?

 

Factually we got no information and every journalist involved stated on the records that they couldn't have anything from anyone until top was cancelled. You could argue that it is not evidence, but that's assume that all journalists in the tech world are unreliable which is a bit of a stretch.

 

We saw the introduction of Arez officially from AMD and Asus. We saw a branding differentiation for Gigabyte dgpu Aorus for the 1080, nothing for the other. And we saw a disposition of MSI gaming X cards for certain AMD products for a period of time. If I remember right it's back to gaming X now. That's 3 different AIB.

 

How are those not facts?

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 there is no way to prove a hypothesis when the required information is behind company trade secrets which they are not willing to release.
 

This is exactly what I am saying.  Facts regarding this are hidden from us. which leaves everything else we observe to be an opinion.  

 

 

[pas008]

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

What we all should have done is said nothing, no one should have reported on and and AMD shouldn't have brought it up until there was enough evidence to satisfy everyone. We should also feel sorry for Nvidia for having to cancel the program.

 

Well unlike science and math where you have the luxury to take your time to perfect your hypothesis and to do the proof for it I don't subscribe to the "Let a business do what is currently observable to be wrong", give them a right of reply which Nvidia got which they did not utilize.

 

Science and math is built upon the freedom of access to information where the confines of business are not. To require that we conduct everything in a scientific manor when we are not under scientific conditions will lead to nothing, there is no way to prove a hypothesis when the required information is behind company trade secrets which they are not willing to release.

 

I'm all for science but business is not science, if it were science we'd have all the information freely accessible.

Well said

If there was wrong amd would be richer

But it's as consumers should point out the real wrong nvidia is doing ddr4 1030

 

That should be stopped

Along with anything that is labeled as another. But same model number outside the 10 % tolerance

 

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Well  Nvidia cancelled it haven't they? That's one fact.

 

They gave motive for GPP on transparency. That's factually incoherent with their own practices: see 1030, 1050,1060 and Titan X variants where there are ambiguities on the branding of different cards. Do I need to provide you with actual proof of that as well even it's pretty well documented already?

 

Factually we got no information and every journalist involved stated on the records that they couldn't have anything from anyone until top was cancelled. You could argue that it is not evidence, but that's assume that all journalists in the tech world are unreliable which is a bit of a stretch.

 

We saw the introduction of Arez officially from AMD and Asus. We saw a branding differentiation for Gigabyte dgpu Aorus for the 1080, nothing for the other. And we saw a disposition of MSI gaming X cards for certain AMD products for a period of time. If I remember right it's back to gaming X now. That's 3 different AIB.

 

How are those not facts?

Model numbers and anti consumer i will agree on as long its performance is outside 10%

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Well  Nvidia cancelled it haven't they? That's one fact.

And without evidence to say why, the only fact we have is that nvidia said it was due to bad PR

Quote

They gave motive for GPP on transparency. That's factually incoherent with their own practices: see 1030, 1050,1060 and Titan X variants where there are ambiguities on the branding of different cards. Do I need to provide you with actual proof of that as well even it's pretty well documented already?

That's nice,  they used contradictory language in their GPP speal.  What does that prove?

Quote

Factually we got no information and every journalist involved stated on the records that they couldn't have anything from anyone until top was cancelled. You could argue that it is not evidence, but that's assume that all journalists in the tech world are unreliable which is a bit of a stretch.

Are you listening to yourself?  nothing is nothing. no evidence from anyone is exactly that.

 

Quote

We saw the introduction of Arez officially from AMD and Asus. We saw a branding differentiation for Gigabyte dgpu Aorus for the 1080, nothing for the other. And we saw a disposition of MSI gaming X cards for certain AMD products for a period of time. If I remember right it's back to gaming X now. That's 3 different AIB.

 

How are those not facts?

You might want to go back to the start of this thread and read it.  None of that is disputed let alone is evidence that  any one hypothesis in this thread carries more weight than another.  

 

We all agree GPP causes the creation of Arez, but that is something we have all agreed upon the whole time.  the debate I have maintained is that there is no way you can claim GPP is damaging/unethical anymore than you can claim it was good for the industry.

 

We have no facts that shed any light on motive, legality or long term effects had it continued.

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

This is exactly what I am saying.  Facts regarding this are hidden from us. which leaves everything else we observe to be an opinion.  

I am perfectly happy to pass judgement on what I have seen though, I blame Nvidia and am disappointed with Asus. I'm willing to accept we will not get all the required evidence and having accepted that I am willing to make a judgement from the little facts we do have and the observations that can be made. You might not be willing, others too.

 

I don't hold business to the same requirements as science.

 

I don't require everyone to also make a judgement on the GPP situation but if someone tries to tell me I'm wrong for making a judgement and cities lack of evidence while also knowing we are likely never to get it then I'm not going to be very receptive to it.

[pas008]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I am perfectly happy to pass judgement on what I have seen though, I blame Nvidia and am disappointed with Asus. I'm willing to accept we will not get all the required evidence and having accepted that I am willing to make a judgement from the little facts we do have the the observations that can be made. You might not be willing, others too.

 

I don't hold business to the same requirements as science.

 

I don't require everyone to also make a judgement on the GPP situation but if someone tries to tell me I'm wrong for making a judgement and cities lack of evidence while also knowing we are likely never to get it then I'm not going to be very receptive to it.

Exactly asus signed away

Just like developers using gameworks

Blame the right individuals or companies

Asus is bigger then nvidia and they can warp the outcome but they signed and did this on their own by being blind for their own brand

[laminutederire]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

We have no facts that shed any light on motive, legality or long term effects had it continued.

The fact I'm using is that they stopped it. I did not used anything else regarding the why as a fact.

They did not use contradictory speech, they used contradictory ideas, which proves that it couldn't be exactly what it said it'd be for instance.

Nothing is the proof that there was a secret around it. I'm sorry but that's logically viable.

 

Anyway, legality here does not matter because we need the actual contracts of we want to go the legal route indeed. And that's probably why AMD didn't sue anyway.

As far as motive go, you can argue that we have facts disproving that the motive they stated was not the real motive. From this you can formulate hypothesis of their motives which are coherent with the current market and it's history.

[pas008]

Rog prolly be worth billions like Razer

All they have to do is negotiate

Rog arez rog strix rog xxx

Rog yyy

They had power

Like i said handled wrong completely

Funny thing is out of all this monitors get labeled correctly but gpus get competitively co branded wtf

 

If i was asus id label my gpus accordingly swift for nvidia

And strix for amd

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

The fact I'm using is that they stopped it. I did not used anything else regarding the why as a fact.

So what do you propose this fact proves?

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

They did not use contradictory speech,

Yes they did, their GPP speal was contradictory to their product marketing and naming.

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

they used contradictory ideas, which proves that it couldn't be exactly what it said it'd be for instance.

Nothing is the proof that there was a secret around it. I'm sorry but that's logically viable.

No that proves nothing.  You do know what proof is don't you?  Proof is something that cant be disputed. nothing is nothing. proof is something. You can't point to nothing and claim it as proof of something. Especially if you've just made that something up in your head because you see an inconsistency on marketing guff.

 

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

Anyway, legality here does not matter because we need the actual contracts of we want to go the legal route indeed. And that's probably why AMD didn't sue anyway.

As far as motive go, you can argue that we have facts disproving that the motive they stated was not the real motive. From this you can formulate hypothesis of their motives which are coherent with the current market and it's history.

you can formulate multiple hypothesis to explain all of it in many different ways.  You clearly do not understand how hypothesis and evidence works.

[laminutederire]

17 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Model numbers and anti consumer i will agree on as long its performance is outside 10%

That's your choice. Go buy deceptive cards if you wish so. (By the way, in the titan X case, it was more 50% than 10% perf difference, just saying).

It remains that it is factually not transparent marketing to sell cards with different performance under the same name whether you want to accept buying those cards or not.

Oh and as far as hypothesis definitions go:

 

Here is a good link for you to familiarize yourself on the meaning of hypothesis in the deductive reasoning framework of scientific evidence.

And take a statistics course to understand the real meaning of hypothesis in the statistics context, because the one you linked is just wrong for so many reasons.

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

That's your choice. Go buy deceptive cards if you wish so. (By the way, in the titan X case, it was more 50% than 10% perf difference, just saying).

It remains that it is factually not transparent marketing to sell cards with different performance under the same name whether you want to accept buying those cards or not.

Oh and as far as hypothesis definitions go:

 

Here is a good link for you to familiarize yourself on the meaning of hypothesis in the deductive reasoning framework of scientific evidence.

And take a statistics course to understand the real meaning of hypothesis in the statistics context, because the one you linked is just wrong for so many reasons.

What why how did you even read? Or even comprehension? But even if i typoed on a forum how you come up with that conclusion? Versions never exist? Early adopters feel more poison now?

Lol hacks hahaha

[laminutederire]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

You can't split my sentence in half to disassociate the meaning of it.

 

Well prove me that there was no secrecy about GPP. I'm listening. Prove me that the motive of Nvidia is exactly what they said it was. Im listening as well.

In this case disproving both statement is equivalent to proving the opposite, since I'm carefully stating those in a way where it has to be a binary choice between the hypothesis and its opposite. So be my guest and prove me that I don't know what it means to be proven or not. I don't see how you can make the case indisputably that Nvidias motives were the ones they said they were and that there was no secrecy about GPP.

 

As far as the rest of what you said goes: the absence of something can be just as much proof of the the presence of something. The absence of someone is proof of him not being there. The lack of certain hormones can be indicative of a given disease. Lack of brain activity proves you're dead. Etc. You can't prove everything with nothing, but you can certainly prove a few things where there should be something that there isn't.

 

I don't understand how this works? You go full on personal attack mode. Very mature.

I'm just telling you that if you want to go the scientific route, then every hypothesis which is coherent is a valid model, but the better model will always be the one explaining what other models can't.

You can formulate as many hypothesis as you want, that doesn't mean they'll fit reality as much.

[pas008]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

You can't split my sentence in half to disassociate the meaning of it.

 

Well prove me that there was no secrecy about GPP. I'm listening. Prove me that the motive of Nvidia is exactly what they said it was. Im listening as well.

In this case disproving both statement is equivalent to proving the opposite, since I'm carefully stating those in a way where it has to be a binary choice between the hypothesis and its opposite. So be my guest and prove me that I don't know what it means to be proven or not. I don't see how you can make the case indisputably that Nvidias motives were the ones they said they were and that there was no secrecy about GPP.

 

As far as the rest of what you said goes: the absence of something can be just as much proof of the the presence of something. The absence of someone is proof of him not being there. The lack of certain hormones can be indicative of a given disease. Lack of brain activity proves you're dead. Etc. You can't prove everything with nothing, but you can certainly prove a few things where there should be something that there isn't.

 

I don't understand how this works? You go full on personal attack mode. Very mature.

I'm just telling you that if you want to go the scientific route, then every hypothesis which is coherent is a valid model, but the better model will always be the one explaining what other models can't.

You can formulate as many hypothesis as you want, that doesn't mean they'll fit reality as much.

So guilty til proven innocent?

[laminutederire]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

What why how did you even read? Or even comprehension? But even if i typoed on a forum how you come up with that conclusion? Versions never exist? Early adopters feel more poison now?

Lol hacks hahaha

I genuinely don't understand at all what you just said. Please make complete sentences, it's just impossible to understand you otherwise.

[laminutederire]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

So guilty til proven innocent?

Factually they're guilty of saying they introduced GPP for given motives which are clearly untrue. They're guilty of not being transparent about the situation as they refused to answer the challenge of journalists questions. Thats proven yes. After that we can speculate on the why we did this, and that's on that speculation that other people like me etc Re discussing about.

You on the other hand dismiss everything just because it seems that you discard facts of we don't have all of them to fully prove they are guilty of anti competitive practices.

They're guilty of the facts, and there are no true current explanation as to the why, but Nvidia isn't innocent at all since they're guilty of at least some things.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

You can't split my sentence in half to disassociate the meaning of it.

 

Well prove me that there was no secrecy about GPP. I'm listening. Prove me that the motive of Nvidia is exactly what they said it was. Im listening as well.

Your not reading any of my posts are you?

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

In this case disproving both statement is equivalent to proving the opposite,

no its not.

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

since I'm carefully stating those in a way where it has to be a binary choice between the hypothesis and its opposite. So be my guest and prove me that I don't know what it means to be proven or not.

You can't make it binary, there is no evidence to base any opinion on let alone choosing only two.

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

I don't see how you can make the case indisputably that Nvidias motives were the ones they said they were and that there was no secrecy about GPP.

 

Where did I say that?  Again you are not reading my posts.

 

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

As far as the rest of what you said goes: the absence of something can be just as much proof of the the presence of something. The absence of someone is proof of him not being there. The lack of certain hormones can be indicative of a given disease. Lack of brain activity proves you're dead. Etc. You can't prove everything with nothing, but you can certainly prove a few things where there should be something that there isn't.

 

Fuck me, what does that even have to do with this? Sorry but this is not biology,  the lack of words does not prove your assumptions. no matter how bad you want them to be true.

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

I don't understand how this works? You go full on personal attack mode. Very mature.

When your posts indicate quite strongly you don't understand, then there is no other way to point out the problem.

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

I'm just telling you that if you want to go the scientific route, then every hypothesis which is coherent is a valid model, but the better model will always be the one explaining what other models can't.

So far you haven't provided a hypothesis that explains something over any other.

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

You can formulate as many hypothesis as you want, that doesn't mean they'll fit reality as much.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that your hypothesis somehow carries more weight than any other.  The issue here is you haven't actually highlighted anything that would support that.

 

I seriously suggest you go back and read my posts.  You seem to have missed my point several times and not only that, you clearly claim i am saying something i have not said.

[pas008]

9 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

I genuinely don't understand at all what you just said. Please make complete sentences, it's just impossible to understand you otherwise.

ok dont need to be a dick we all here can understand text messages

 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Factually they're guilty of saying they introduced GPP for given motives which are clearly untrue. They're guilty of not being transparent about the situation as they refused to answer the challenge of journalists questions. Thats proven yes. After that we can speculate on the why we did this, and that's on that speculation that other people like me etc Re discussing about.

You on the other hand dismiss everything just because it seems that you discard facts of we don't have all of them to fully prove they are guilty of anti competitive practices.

They're guilty of the facts, and there are no true current explanation as to the why, but Nvidia isn't innocent at all since they're guilty of at least some things.

I bolded the important bit you said.

 

Because I am truly scratching my head trying to decipher the rest.   You are trying to claim you have facts that prove your speculation.  You do know that speculation, if you have facts, is not speculation right?

[pas008]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I bolded the important bit you said.

 

Because I am truly scratching my head trying to decipher the rest.   You are trying to claim you have facts that prove your speculation.  You do know that speculation, if you have facts, is not speculation right?

its all speculation

all i know is Im going to wait for 3rd party coolers again

only once I didnt have to wait for 3rd party coolers

when was that?

oh when there was no co/sub/fuckyou brands?

[pas008]

disclaimer they drove to be a dick read all the responses

I wasnt being a dick intentionally ltt

[laminutederire]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

 

Have you ever done some statistics or epistemology or even basic logic or probability in your life?

If so you'd know that you can indeed make a lot of things binary if you partition your events. As long as you have a space of possibilities which is known, you can cut it in half and make hypothesis A: answer is in the first half. If it's not in the first half then it's in the second one. And you can do this rather easily by stating hypothesis right.

You implied that I can't prove the basic facts on which we try to argue on, so it's fair to assume that you imply that you can prove that those facts are false or can't be proven.

 

You're the one not reading my posts for the most part. I've spend a considerable amount of time to demonstrate to you that we DO have some facts. We don't have all the facts necessary to know everything that has happened, but we do know for a fact a few things.

And yes that's contradicting your stance that we cannot assess anything because we don't have the information needed.

 

Lack of response to given questions proves that you don't want people to have the answers to those questions, otherwise you'd have given them. How hard is it to understand such fundamental logic?

 

I'm covering the basis for now, and I haven't even got to the hypothesis part because you guys wouldn't recognize the facts I want to use to judge the quality of said hypothesis. You were arguing way before I could even place an hypothesis, so you can't tell me I'm a stupid person who don't understand what you said and what proving etc is, solely because you were arguing on something else before, that I made clear a few things before to have common ground to think on, and then attacking me because I had the decency to discuss the basis of the discussion before trying to discuss on the rest.

And your premise has been for a long time on this thread that we can't know anything becausebwe don't have any evidence of anything. Which I explained for now quite a long time that you indeed have a few things that we do know anyway.

 

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I bolded the important bit you said.

 

Because I am truly scratching my head trying to decipher the rest.   You are trying to claim you have facts that prove your speculation.  You do know that speculation, if you have facts, is not speculation right?

I was explaining to him what I'm explaining to you know. I was explaining to him that I was arguing on the facts at hand which are needed to base speculation on. As I said above, I personally haven't speculated on anything yet, because you make it hard to even agree on fundamental facts that are needed to speculate and then evaluate if it is coherent.

 

 

14 minutes ago, pas008 said:

ok dont need to be a dick we all here can understand text messages

 

I'm not being a dick, I'm genuinely not understanding your post. If you say: even I typed on a forum, blabla. Even if you typed what? 

Or when you say: or even comprehension? Not that's not a sentence really. But I can't really understand it if you don't specify comprehension of what? In which context?

There is a point when if you're too vague in your phrasing, then it becomes really hard to understanding what you are actually saying yes.

 

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Have you ever done some statistics or epistemology or even basic logic or probability in your life?

If so you'd know that you can indeed make a lot of things binary if you partition your events. As long as you have a space of possibilities which is known, you can cut it in half and make hypothesis A: answer is in the first half. If it's not in the first half then it's in the second one. And you can do this rather easily by stating hypothesis right.

You implied that I can't prove the basic facts on which we try to argue on, so it's fair to assume that you imply that you can prove that those facts are false or can't be proven.

 

You're the one not reading my posts for the most part. I've spend a considerable amount of time to demonstrate to you that we DO have some facts. We don't have all the facts necessary to know everything that has happened, but we do know for a fact a few things.

And yes that's contradicting your stance that we cannot assess anything because we don't have the information needed.

 

Lack of response to given questions proves that you don't want people to have the answers to those questions, otherwise you'd have given them. How hard is it to understand such fundamental logic?

 

I'm covering the basis for now, and I haven't even got to the hypothesis part because you guys wouldn't recognize the facts I want to use to judge the quality of said hypothesis. You were arguing way before I could even place an hypothesis, so you can't tell me I'm a stupid person who don't understand what you said and what proving etc is, solely because you were arguing on something else before, that I made clear a few things before to have common ground to think on, and then attacking me because I had the decency to discuss the basis of the discussion before trying to discuss on the rest.

And your premise has been for a long time on this thread that we can't know anything becausebwe don't have any evidence of anything. Which I explained for now quite a long time that you indeed have a few things that we do know anyway.

 

I was explaining to him what I'm explaining to you know. I was explaining to him that I was arguing on the facts at hand which are needed to base speculation on. As I said above, I personally haven't speculated on anything yet, because you make it hard to even agree on fundamental facts that are needed to speculate and then evaluate if it is coherent.

 

 

I'm not being a dick, I'm genuinely not understanding your post. If you say: even I typed on a forum, blabla. Even if you typed what? 

Or when you say: or even comprehension? Not that's not a sentence really. But I can't really understand it if you don't specify comprehension of what? In which context?

There is a point when if you're too vague in your phrasing, then it becomes really hard to understanding what you are actually saying yes.

 

@bolded no on has given proof

 

 

and yes please input evidence

 

I link evidence you knock it down so wheres your counter evidence?

 

 

like i said guilty til proven innocent hahahaha

ty come again

[pas008]

fyi heresay isnt evidence

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

You were arguing way before I could even place an hypothesis, so you can't tell me I'm a stupid person who don't understand what you said and what proving etc is, solely because you were arguing on something else before, that I made clear a few things before to have common ground to think on, and then attacking me because I had the decency to discuss the basis of the discussion before trying to discuss on the rest.

To be fair I did wind @mr moose up a bit before you came in, there isn't really a good excuse for it but I know I've been rather terse and a bit dickish in discussing the topic (life stuff, tired, cranky blah blah). Not that there is a way that we can actually wipe the slate clean and start again just remember we're all probably more pissy about this than we should be.

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler