(10-16-2013, 03:12 AM)xemnas Wrote: [ -> ]Everyone has the right to not believe what other people say. It's natural. However, when you are making an argument, you need to have some knowledge, reference, etc.
That's the thing. No one made an argument. Unless I missed something no one ever said he was wrong. I sure didn't. I just asked for some form of verification of what he was saying. So that I would be well informed and have a source to point to if the topic ever comes up again.
Is that really that wrong. I personally don't think so.
He already said that he had looked at the code. Maybe you expected that he should have posted the code and explained things to you. I don't know if Nintendo allows posting their code in public forums. I doubt that.
Just trusting him doesn't get around any of the points I raised earlier.
Jesus this sure blew up while I was gone. All I did was ask for a source. That's literally all I did.
tueidj Wrote:Unless you've done the same I don't see why you have any reason to state that it's untrue.
I didn't state that it was untrue. I asked for your source after you made the claim. Which you were unwilling to provide.
tueidj Wrote:Show me any spec mentioned in this thread that came from a more authoritative source than someone saying "I know, take my word for it".
There aren't any. That still doesn't mean people should take your word for it. If you make a claim and imply that it's a confirmed fact people have a right to ask how you know.
tueidj Wrote:Do you realize how stupid it is to turn this into an argument? What do I have to gain by making things up?
Nothing. That still doesn't mean people should take your word for it. When someone asks you for your source show it to them and be done with it. Or tell them why you can't.
xemnas Wrote:Everyone has the right to not believe what other people say. It's natural. However, when you are making an argument, you need to have some knowledge, reference, etc. It's not appropriate to make an argument just because you don't believe someone especially when he has already explained where the information came from (in this case from reverse engineering/looking at the code).
xemnas Wrote:In that case, who know the code better should clarify that. Not anyone who hasn't looked at the code.
Well he didn't provide any code. Or any source at all. Just his word.
delroth Wrote:Jesus people here are idiots.
Put yourself in the same situation for a second.
Some random guy who you don't know the identity of walks in and begins stating something as fact. You don't know if what he's saying it true or untrue but you can't find any information anywhere backing up his statements so you ask him for a source. He doesn't provide this source and instead comments on why you should take his word for it. He vaguely references some code that he has seen but doesn't tell you what code or where you can find it. Again you ask him for his source. Each time you ask you are not given a source and in some cases are met with mild hostility instead. What then is your natural assumption of this person? And regardless of whether that assumption is true would you realistically trust the persons statement to be factually true?
Now apparently this guy has a strong reputation in the wiiu hacking scene which helps him back up his argument. But at no point did he bring this up. So how were we supposed to know who he was or why we should trust him? He gave no reasons for us to trust his word and no alternative sources either. How then are we idiots for asking?
Like Xalphenos I would have been fine not having a source if he told us who he was instead. That would have been enough.
xemnas Wrote:I don't see why you guys don't trust him but trust another developer. It doesn't make sense to me at all.
Everyone here knows who delroth is. He's been a major developer that has been semi-active with the community for years. And he's been our lead developer for the last year possibly longer. He's therefore established a strong level of trust among us and is considered an extremely credible source. We now know who this other guy is but we didn't before.
xemnas Wrote:Maybe you expected that he should have posted the code and explained things to you.
Yes. That's what we call "a source".
xemnas Wrote:I don't know if Nintendo allows posting their code in public forums. I doubt that.
I was expecting a link to some documentation or article referencing the code. That would have worked just as well as the actual code. If even that couldn't be done for legal reasons he should of said so. But he kept acting like we didn't need to see it and should take his word for it. Which is suspicious when it's coming from a random person.
I hope this has all been sorted out and nobody thinks any less of me now that I've explained myself. I still don't see anything wrong with asking strangers for their source when they bring up new information.
Just for clarity, my posts weren't directed to you. We can have different opinions. For me a first hand experience can be considered a "source" as well. Also, it's quite confusing because you quoted many posts that weren't directed to you but you talked about them as if they were. You expectation wasn't very reasonable because if his source came from reverse engineering there won't be documentation or article available on the internet that he knows of.
Disregarding whether or not it would be legal for me to post parts of Nintendo's code, how would it be any more reliable than what I had already said since you have no way to verify its authenticity?
The reason I think less of you is because you made an assumption (WiiU doesn't use the DSP) based on no facts at all and demanded evidence be shown to prove you wrong, even though there was never any evidence that you were right; in fact the very existence of the WiiU's DSP is a hint to the contrary.
If you doubt what somebody is saying simply because you're not familiar with them, the obvious solution to me would be to remove that unfamiliarity - google them, maybe ask other people if they know them - rather than expect them to list their previous works and experience ("Hi I'm Troy McClure, you might remember me from such wii hacks as letterbomb and the most realistic game ever: Desert Bus") just because they want to post a correction to something you said.
(10-16-2013, 10:30 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Put yourself in the same situation for a second.
Some random guy who you don't know the identity of walks in and begins stating something as fact. You don't know if what he's saying it true or untrue but you can't find any information anywhere backing up his statements so you ask him for a source. He doesn't provide this source and instead comments on why you should take his word for it. He vaguely references some code that he has seen but doesn't tell you what code or where you can find it. Again you ask him for his source. Each time you ask you are not given a source and in some cases are met with mild hostility instead. What then is your natural assumption of this person? And regardless of whether that assumption is true would you realistically trust the persons statement to be factually true?
Now apparently this guy has a strong reputation in the wiiu hacking scene which helps him back up his argument. But at no point did he bring this up. So how were we supposed to know who he was or why we should trust him? He gave no reasons for us to trust his word and no alternative sources either. How then are we idiots for asking?
Like Xalphenos I would have been fine not having a source if he told us who he was instead. That would have been enough.
That's only you think your uninformed, baseless opinion is worth more than the opinion of someone else. You should actually know tueidj since he's already shown how ridiculous you are in the past, on the
thread talking about use of MMX for emulation. But it's also easy to find on google that he's the author of Devolution and that he has ported several open source games to the Wii. Even if you limit your search to his posts on the Dolphin forums,
https://forums.dolphin-emu.org/Thread-adding-gc-keyboard-support?pid=271547#pid271547 shows him explaining some details of how the GC Keyboard behaves, which should give you a hint.
You fucked up, apologize and stop giving people more reason to think you're an idiot.
(10-16-2013, 11:49 AM)tueidj Wrote: [ -> ]Disregarding whether or not it would be legal for me to post parts of Nintendo's code, how would it be any more reliable than what I had already said since you have no way to verify its authenticity?
I don't mean to repeat you but I thought exactly the same. If someone doesn't believe what you said, logically they shouldn't believe the code you post either. This is not an open source project that a kind developer can give non-developers a link to the code and explain things to them. Someone might argue that false code is more difficult to forge than word, though. But supposedly if a developer is willing to make things up, it's not that difficult. It's just absurd.
The rest of your post is reasonable as well. I suggest other people who have different opinions to read and think about it. And in my opinion, it's not proper to ask others to prove something you don't agree or expect them to tell you how good they are after they have already told you that how they have acquired the information.
This has gone so off topic. I don't really know what like 2 pages of this have to do with wii u emulation at all. Can we please get on topic or go to the random thread with this random stuff that has nothing to do with the actual topic.
In a parallel universe, where no-one has noticed the world is round, simply because the most obvious theory to pair with the observations of those who haven't looked into it as thoroughly as might be ideal is that the Earth is flat:
"I've had an idea!"
"What?"
"I think the Earth is round."
"What on Earth are you talking about? That doesn't seem to tie up with my observations. As far as I can see, the Earth looks pretty flat. I can't see all of it, so I could be wrong, but I can't see any reason why it would be round. Can you give me any evidence?"
"Nah, just trust me on this."
"Seriously, I'm going to need some evidence before I change my worldview."
"Trust me. I looked at some of the Earth."
"That doesn't help me much. Which bit of the Earth? What looked round about it."
"OMG stop arguing. You're accusing me of lying. That's so unscientific."
"I'm not. You're just some guy who's started talking to me in the street. I don't know you."
"I'm Delroth. The other guy is a well known expert in the field of Earth-study and Geometry. He's done a load of calculations based on the fact that you can see the mast of a ship before you can see it's hull. You're an idiot for not knowing all this information, and an idiot to ask for proof when you are told something that as far as you can tell from your observations isn't sensible."
"How would you respond if some random guy came up to you and started saying things that sound like nonsense, but may not be, but refused to offer any explanation for why the the nonsensical things actually make more sense than the other idea?"
"I'd agree with this person wholeheartedly, because I'd google their name, and ask around the area to find out everything he's ever said to everyone else [admittedly this was proposed with the forum search tool, not by asking people stuff, so is less ridiculous in real life]."
"Seriously, that protocol makes no sense. The exact reason the scientific method exists is to prevent your protocol."
"You fucked up, apologize and stop giving people more reason to think you're an idiot."