3 ms·
I made this same reply to another thread, so I'm sorry to say essentially the same thing twice, but -- the comment has a familiar structure, "it doesn't work fo
by pinkmuffinere 13d ago
I made this same reply to another thread, so I'm sorry to say essentially the same thing twice, but -- the comment has a familiar structure, "it doesn't work for you because you used an [old / suboptimal / non-frontier] model. If you use X you'll see that it works". These sorts of claims push the onus back onto the other person (or in this case tfa), without really accepting the result, or taking on any work for yourself. It gets tiresome to retest with the newest model every other week. Is there any data you can provide to support your claim, or any result you can contribute here?
- peterashford 12d agoIt may be tiresome, but it's true. It doesn't refute the article's premise thou, only retesting with newer models would and that would be the same tiresome requirement you already called out
- 1attice 12d agoYes, that's an annoying predicament, but we come by it honestly. Limits of scientific method in the face of exponential takeoff, IMO, and kind of proves the opposite result (RSI appears to be here)