Firing Squad NVIDIA Editors Day Article
- Thread starter Dave Baumann
- Start date
Dave, your recommendation of this article has me reconsidering my unimpressed and slightly disappointed reaction to it. In fact, the first thing I though after reading it was to quote the author's admission: He's right, he doesn't know as much about 3D as some others in his crew might. I'll quote what I said at AT:
Perhaps I'm just being overly critical or blase.
Perhaps I'm just being overly critical or blase.
Pete,
My recommendation doesn't so much come from really understanding the nuanaces and deep technical details - very few people could have done that (amittedly, it probably would have done the article good if Brandon had looked at it before it went up). Part of the objective the Editors Day was probably to blind the less initiated with science and smattered with a few vague comments such that they would come out and write nice things.
By his own admission Jakub is one of those less initiated, I am impressed, however, that rather than writing a suitably fluffy piece Jakub has taken the time to do more research and get some further commentry from those that matter in this market (the developers) and allow that to further shape his opinion. IMO, this is one of the best cases of actual journalism we've seen 3D web wise for a little while, even if every single tech detail isn't tied down.
My recommendation doesn't so much come from really understanding the nuanaces and deep technical details - very few people could have done that (amittedly, it probably would have done the article good if Brandon had looked at it before it went up). Part of the objective the Editors Day was probably to blind the less initiated with science and smattered with a few vague comments such that they would come out and write nice things.
By his own admission Jakub is one of those less initiated, I am impressed, however, that rather than writing a suitably fluffy piece Jakub has taken the time to do more research and get some further commentry from those that matter in this market (the developers) and allow that to further shape his opinion. IMO, this is one of the best cases of actual journalism we've seen 3D web wise for a little while, even if every single tech detail isn't tied down.
Hi,
Obviously, I'm the author of the article.
First. Yes, I did make mistakes. However, I'm working to rectify them as soon as possible, which actually means taking my time, since I'm in no hurry to fix mistakes by making new ones.
Second. Although, as I admitted, I made mistakes in the matter, at the time I posted, I was as sure as I could reasonably be that I had every comment and assumption backed up. So gkar1, I'm sorry, I hate to burst your cynical bubble, but I don't make it a point to write deliberately misleading statements. I would have thought it patently obvious at how hard I tried to get an even perspective on matters.
Third. I'd like to think that admitting I'm not a tech guru, that not pretending I am some sort of 3D hardware and API genius is a good idea. The whole point is to admit up front that despite all my best efforts, I might have made mistakes. I'm not merely disappointed, but I'm honestly hurt by the fact that people have seen fit to jump on this attempt at forthrightness.
Fourth [related to Third]. Benchmarks can be fudged and yes, I obviously know that. Unfortunately, whoever caught onto this great conspiracy hasn't shared his fool-proof method for comparing graphics cards, therefore I was forced to rely on benchmarks as the next-best thing. I acknowledged the potential flaw to simply remind everyone of the limitations of judging based on benchmarks. That was the whole point.
I'd just like to thank Dave for understanding where I'm coming from and trying to explain that, without getting suckered into defending the mistakes I made or, conversely, harping on them.
I'd also love to stick around (really, I mean that) and reply in a back-and-forth discussion, but I've been on the internet far too long to make that mistake. While this forum is cleaner than almost any I've seen, I can't trust myself to not give into my resentment at some of the allegations, or to avoid the trolls that surely lurk. I think my little outburst in the Third and Fourth points is proof positive that I should just leave.
Food for thought: If we had peaches, we could have peaches and cream, if we had cream.
Obviously, I'm the author of the article.
First. Yes, I did make mistakes. However, I'm working to rectify them as soon as possible, which actually means taking my time, since I'm in no hurry to fix mistakes by making new ones.
Second. Although, as I admitted, I made mistakes in the matter, at the time I posted, I was as sure as I could reasonably be that I had every comment and assumption backed up. So gkar1, I'm sorry, I hate to burst your cynical bubble, but I don't make it a point to write deliberately misleading statements. I would have thought it patently obvious at how hard I tried to get an even perspective on matters.
Third. I'd like to think that admitting I'm not a tech guru, that not pretending I am some sort of 3D hardware and API genius is a good idea. The whole point is to admit up front that despite all my best efforts, I might have made mistakes. I'm not merely disappointed, but I'm honestly hurt by the fact that people have seen fit to jump on this attempt at forthrightness.
Fourth [related to Third]. Benchmarks can be fudged and yes, I obviously know that. Unfortunately, whoever caught onto this great conspiracy hasn't shared his fool-proof method for comparing graphics cards, therefore I was forced to rely on benchmarks as the next-best thing. I acknowledged the potential flaw to simply remind everyone of the limitations of judging based on benchmarks. That was the whole point.
I'd just like to thank Dave for understanding where I'm coming from and trying to explain that, without getting suckered into defending the mistakes I made or, conversely, harping on them.
I'd also love to stick around (really, I mean that) and reply in a back-and-forth discussion, but I've been on the internet far too long to make that mistake. While this forum is cleaner than almost any I've seen, I can't trust myself to not give into my resentment at some of the allegations, or to avoid the trolls that surely lurk. I think my little outburst in the Third and Fourth points is proof positive that I should just leave.
Food for thought: If we had peaches, we could have peaches and cream, if we had cream.
Jakub said:
Hey Jakub, please do stick around - we have more than our fair share of cynics, but most are willing to listen and interaction can hopefully lead to understanding on both sides. And, hey, if you fancy the occasional blow up, we can understand that - we've been known to do it ourselves ever so often.
Jakub, I understand your views. From the sounds of it, I doubt if you will see this, but may I make one suggestion for the future?
When commenting on comments made by a competitor about other people's hardware, or comparing their own hardware to the competition, please contact the competition to check the correctness of such comments.
At least that way you will have two equally biased views to work from. As you say correctly in the article, it is hard to discriminate lots of little spin; having the opposite point of view will aid in this.
When commenting on comments made by a competitor about other people's hardware, or comparing their own hardware to the competition, please contact the competition to check the correctness of such comments.
At least that way you will have two equally biased views to work from. As you say correctly in the article, it is hard to discriminate lots of little spin; having the opposite point of view will aid in this.
Hi Jakub and welcome, may I suggest reading this thread... http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=125542#125542.. that Reverend linked to earlier in this thread. It probably addressed the same issues that nV and ATI had when deciding on what precision to use and at what expense.
In contrast to the responses of some members of certain sites who have made the exact same mistakes, it is encouraging to me to see a trend of personal responsibility being taken by the last 3 instances of the "same old problem" (an emotional reaction preventing participating in a discussion doesn't change that, nor would an emotional reaction to an emotional attack be unexpected).
It is also very frustrating for me, and many others it would seem, to see and have seen the same mistakes continually and repeatedly being made by prominent web sites and their authors...the frustration of a significant lack of "before the fact" consideration that I mention.
What does this result in? This results in a demonstration of how someone can put in a lot of effort, based on their best knowledge, but make mistakes that transform much of that effort into something undesirable and "misinformative".
The problem, AFAICS, is how some prominent pitfalls are actively being stepped into. My take on some of those pitfalls:
These are just the ones that occur to me off the top of my head...I'd hope some such set of standards would already be established at prominent web sites.
Finally: readers are going to react in a hostile fashion if they don't like what you say, whatever the merits of what you say. Don't pay attention to the hostility, pay attention to whether the criticism/praise is made for valid reasons. Really, this should be especially rewarding in these forums, as long as the last point doesn't interfere (which, again, I'm hopeful it will not).
It is also very frustrating for me, and many others it would seem, to see and have seen the same mistakes continually and repeatedly being made by prominent web sites and their authors...the frustration of a significant lack of "before the fact" consideration that I mention.
What does this result in? This results in a demonstration of how someone can put in a lot of effort, based on their best knowledge, but make mistakes that transform much of that effort into something undesirable and "misinformative".
The problem, AFAICS, is how some prominent pitfalls are actively being stepped into. My take on some of those pitfalls:
- Don't pass on unreserved conclusions based purely on the word of an (self-)interested party. Heck, you should probably try to avoid it for any "party" when you don't understand something, but avoiding it for "interested" ones should be marked with big glowing "STOP" signs.
[list:feeb75a449] - You can technically analyze what they say, if you feel competent to do so (it is alright to be mistaken, as long as you made a competent effort and are willing to learn from mistakes), or refer to someone else's analysis if you have confidence in it (you are associating your name with it).
- You can check with another interested party if the assertion concerns them (if, for example, ATI isn't responding in a timely and informative fashion, it is easily defensible for a presentation of this step to be missing, but there are still the other steps...however, not checking with them when you are ignorant should be obviously a bad idea).
- You can mention your reservations, and be sure to represent them significantly in any conclusions you make. If you are ignorant (hey, that's not a curse word, that is a correctable condition that everyone should recognize as being applicable to them in some measure at some point) about something, you do still have to make sure that your reservations pass these checks as well, or you're just doing the "Don't" above in a different way (think FUD).
- You can limit the conclusions you make.
- If you're ignorant about the topic (this is not a curse word or insult!) such that your understanding is incomplete, you're very likely to actually be turning fact to some degree of fiction. In a framework of other mistakes, this can be amazingly distortive.
- If you absolutely must try to do so to make things more understandable to your readership, limit your reinterpretation in some degree of accordance with the basic elements of what you are reinterpreting, don't just propogate your view made without technical basis.
- Clearly label your reinterpretation...to the reader, and to yourself. The latter helps prevent constructing conclusions based on a foundation of reinterpretations and trying to represent them as something else (like being based on technical analysis). If you don't have confidence in your understanding, this should be reflected in your presentation of the conclusion as well.
- If you don't actually have some technical certainty, representing your conclusions as if you do is a lie. Writing a technically oriented article is supposed to be based on the premise of some technical certainty (unless it is a fiction piece), which is why qualifiers are necessary when it is not. It is your decision to write an article, and your name you are putting on it. (This is the central mistake being made all over the place, which associates the bad aspects of an article with a bad decision by an author).
- Don't confuse ego and self-importance with certainty. (This is the central mistake not being displayed to a disasterous degree by 3 recent examples that come to mind, in contrast, IMO, to some other instances, so I won't elaborate).
These are just the ones that occur to me off the top of my head...I'd hope some such set of standards would already be established at prominent web sites.
Finally: readers are going to react in a hostile fashion if they don't like what you say, whatever the merits of what you say. Don't pay attention to the hostility, pay attention to whether the criticism/praise is made for valid reasons. Really, this should be especially rewarding in these forums, as long as the last point doesn't interfere (which, again, I'm hopeful it will not).
Here's a useful hint and suggestion : There's no need for such a confession. It actually helps no one.Jakub said:
As for not visiting here based on your Internet experience, here's another suggestion : There's no need to respond if you don't want to, but that doesn't mean you don't need to visit this site and participate when you do want to. Sooner or later, you'll know who at the B3D forums are worth your attention and who aren't, when it comes to your participation.
Vortigern_red
Newcomer
My post in the article comments on firingsquad.
Correction to the article.
Nice to see people making corrections to articles and not being too big headed to admit they were wrong. Although someone pointed out to me later in the thread that FPRT are not a DX9 std as I stated but optional so I was wrong in part too! ( assuming the anon poster was correct!)
Correction to the article.
Nice to see people making corrections to articles and not being too big headed to admit they were wrong. Although someone pointed out to me later in the thread that FPRT are not a DX9 std as I stated but optional so I was wrong in part too! ( assuming the anon poster was correct!)
Vortigern_red
Newcomer
Oh I must have missed that, do you have a link? I was just going off what was said by Gabe at Shaderday.
EDIT: Thinking about it it my point was not about what they *would* be using in HL2 but what Gabe had said they were going to be using at shaderday and he was misquoted.
[url]http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/hl2/
[/url]
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, god dammit, does nobody read the bloody front page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Had to add this:Dio said:
ATI and NVIDIA would dispute every single point I'd make into non-existence. If I said something pro-ATI, NVIDIA would take issue with it and deny whatever they had to, to get it removed, and vice-versa. It sounds nice in theory that the companies would cancel each other out and make things honest, but that's a crock of BS. I've been there, done that. The only thing they'd agree on, is that there was an Editor's Day. And no, that's really not much of an exaggeration. You don't believe me, I know, but that's how it works.
It's why I went to independent sources as much as possible. Yes, I could have asked more questions, but it took me a week and a half to get all the replies as it is. Some things, like NVIDIA saying that ATI (not Valve) pointed out IQ problems at Shader Day, nobody at the conference disputed, and most of these people had the benefit of being at Shader Day. I mean, put yourself in my shoes, wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that in this case, NVIDIA was telling the truth? (Believe me, they got hammered with questions and comments, especially by Alex from Xbit). And besides, was the claim of who did it even that big a deal? I think it's bullshit, both companies should be watching each other.
My biggest mistake in this issue was not talking to Brandon more about the article. I can't really excuse that. I know what I was thinking at the time (that the guy's busy enough as it is), but that's just an idiotic thought.
I'm going to rant for a bit (oh, and this isn't necessarily aimed at this forum, I haven't had the inclination to read every reply in this thread):
The internet gives people such incredible power to get at the sources of information, it combines so many intelligent people together, it creates a mob. Not just any mob, mind you, but it's still got a mob mentality.
I mean, when some writer in Motor Trend or whatever magazine claims that the F20C in the Honda S2000 achieves 110%+ volumetric efficiency because of "Honda's patented VTEC system", people don't flip the page and switch to a real-time forum filled with mechanical engineers who point out what an assclown he is; that he should hand in his journalism degree if he doesn't know the theories behind using sound pulses in the header to scavenge exhaust from the combustion chamber, as well as creating harmonics in the intake to supercharge the air rushing in at certain RPMs, all combined with specific valve timing and lift and properly shaped and sized ports in order to allow the engine breathe more than its displacement should technically allow through a small RPM range.
I mean, it's ludicrous to expect someone with a journalism degree to know that. He may pick it up during his career, but he's still not going to prove it with any formulas. Yet my money is that if car mags were online-only publications, you would see communities ripping apart writers like that.
I see this all the time, especially when game developers are involved. A developer's worst enemy isn't a bad publisher, isn't missing a milestone, it isn't poor IHV support or team chemistry issues. A developer's worst enemy is his fanbase. If you don't believe me, spend some time on flight sim forums.
Any argument that says that someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, shouldn't talk, would automatically kill every conversation EVER. You couldn't even comment on the weather, because you're not a meteorologist. And if you're a one, you'd damn well better not have ever predicted the weather wrong.
People make mistakes, despite the best of intentions. Live with it.
"on a forum somewhere"
Jakub said:
Jakub, Dio (who works for ATI BTW) wasn't talking about making pro ATI or NVIDIA statements (although in truth, ATI tend not to debate what you may say about the competition as far as my dealings with them have been concerned), he was actually just talking about factual, or not, technical statements - there were a number of allusions NVIDIA made to ATI hardware that were not correct (ones that I've mentioned in other threads bout this editors day).
Similar threads
