Your priority seems to be to maintain your ignorance at all costs. To be fair, you've been very successful. Well done.

The best part of my morning is sitting back with a cuppa joe...

It's a little cruel, I know.
I'm try to keep the humour level high, but I've got a lot to keep up with. I have to stop laughing before I type

That's a sign of insanity. I don't laugh at you, I just think you're nuts.

How To Multiple boinc clients on the same computer

Although for the life of me i can't seen any point in doing so.

One idea is to have different cache sizes for the cpu and gpu crunching projects

How To Multiple boinc clients on the same computer

Although for the life of me i can't seen any point in doing so.

One idea is to have different cache sizes for the cpu and gpu crunching projects

Yeah, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.
If you run one project, and if they're flaky then you'll set the cache to cover hiccups inline with Task deadlines. If you run multiple projects, then set it to no cache, and your Resource share settings will take care of themselves as work is or isn't available. I just don't see any advantage in making something that really is relatively simple, orders of magnitude more complicated.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I'm still waiting for this alledged rinse.

Awww, isn't that cute? Karen wants some attention. C'mere, Karen, let me scratch you behind the ears. Who's a good boy? YOU ARE!!! Yes you are! Yes you are!

Then prove you're intelligent by contradicting what I wrote with an explanation of what you believe evolution to be. Or can't you manage that?

Nah. When you are shown to be factually incorrect about something, you either change the subject, or just drop it.

I thought that the point was self-evident, but assuming that you understand literally anything seems to be a mistake.

You're speaking to yourself now. Or have you no idea how to use the quote function?

Evolution is the removal of the poor quality genes - of the people that can't fight coronavirus by themselves. It ensures the next generation will be healthier. It's the whole basis of everything organic, unless you're a religious nut.

Dumb as a bag of hammers. Dumber, even. What a maroon.

Then prove you're intelligent by contradicting what I wrote with an explanation of what you believe evolution to be. Or can't you manage that?

I'm disappointed you gave up on giving me fresh opportunities to point out how risible all your views are, so now I'm going to have to address the most self-evident point of all, which doesn't really need explaining but seeing as I've got access to a lot of info I may as well do a number on this one too.

So we'll take Evolution to be the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations, which right off the bat means it takes just a little longer than 15 months to take effect, which I did point out to you before but it didn't seem to sink in. But I digress... for now.
What you're referring to is the natural selection aspect of it, so weakness is recessive over strength, unhealthy is recessive over healthy, including reproductive health because that leads to whether recessive traits are carried over into future generations or not.

In relation to Covid19, I'll use ONS data which is for England & Wales deaths only (139,651 by 30-Apr) rather than all-UK deaths (152,704 by 30-Apr) because it's analysed more completely in the ONS weekly update. (Note, both are way more than the suppressed UK Gov't figure of 127,679 by 16-May, just to emphasise my previous point on that more explicitly).

One thing we all know is Covid19 is correlated most closely of all to age, which ONS confirms in that deaths age 0-64 are 15,905 out of 139,651 (11.39% or 1 in 8.78) and the rest 65 and above.
The other thing that no-one mentions but has been apparent from day one is that, of the 15,905 deaths age 0-64, the next highest correlation is gender.
10,112 are male, only 5,793 female.
So out of every 11 people who wouldn't be in the the kind of age group that might be dying anyway, 7 are male and only 4 female, whether rich, poor, black, white or any other confounding factor.
More men die than women anyway, but it's more 50.x% v 49.x%, not 63.6% v 36.4% so it's significant.

With that info, it's worth looking closer at the numbers and seeing what the mix is of male and female up to child-bearing age, which I'll call 49 for nothing better than arbitrary reasons (pick another age if you like - I've got all the numbers here). It'll cover the vast majority, if not 100%

Male deaths up to 49yo v total = 1,791 out of 75,903 = 2.36%
Female deaths up to 49yo v total = 1,148 out of 63,748 = 1.80%

Putting these two bits of info together, if Covid19 is of evolutionary consequence - that is, over generations - it would be pretty daft if nearly 8 out of 9 deaths are of the old rather than the young. It would be even more daft that those 8 out of 9 are of an age way above the reproductive stage of their life, and it would be daftest of all if it only affected between 97.6% and 98.2% of those already having had all the kids they're ever going to have.

All of this belies all of the relevant factors that apply to Evolution as a consequence of natural selection. By reaching an old age, none of them were so feeble as to not reach that old age, none of them were so unhealthy as not to reach their old age, nearly all had already passed on the allegedly weak genes to their offspring at an earlier stage of life.

The evolutionary consequences of Covid19 are therefore precisely zero (or so close to zero as to be zero on the basis that such a low proportion isn't worth bothering with, which I know you'll like, but this time is appropriate on an evolutionary timescale).
The main thing Covid19 does is kill people who are healthy (and sensible) enough to reach 60, 70, 80, 90yo and above, but within 28 days.
In short, it culls healthier older people.

Don't come back to me with how long people would've lived if they die at 70/80/90 compared to average life expectancy, because I've got access to ONS actuarial tables at the ready to show that life expectancy for those age brackets have nothing to do with average life expectancy and are considerably longer, whether with comorbidities or not.

Your line quoted at the top of this post was in response to this comment of mine

Evolution has got nothing to do with anything here.
Evolution is something that takes place over an extended period. No evolution is taking place regarding Covid.
It's a catastrophic event for humans, that only counts if it occurs within 28 days, so we're told.

All perfectly accurate and correct by me.
Tell me if you've heard this before, but every word you replied with was irrelevant and, frankly, bilge anyway

It doesn't matter how many old people die of it, the important thing is how many young people die of it, and that we let them die, so they don't make a weaker next generation. You can protect the old by shutting them in their homes, but everyone of reproducing age should be allowed to get the virus and see if they're worthy.

How To Multiple boinc clients on the same computer

Although for the life of me i can't seen any point in doing so.

One idea is to have different cache sizes for the cpu and gpu crunching projects

Yeah, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.
If you run one project, and if they're flaky then you'll set the cache to cover hiccups inline with Task deadlines. If you run multiple projects, then set it to no cache, and your Resource share settings will take care of themselves as work is or isn't available. I just don't see any advantage in making something that really is relatively simple, orders of magnitude more complicated.

I agree that it's alot of extra trouble for the small amount, to me, gain you get. Although just setting a zero day cache doesn't work for every project as some still send out boatloads of tasks despite a zero day cache and a resource share of zero, unfortunately those projects are also some of the ones with work available 99% of the time.

I agree that it's alot of extra trouble for the small amount, to me, gain you get. Although just setting a zero day cache doesn't work for every project as some still send out boatloads of tasks despite a zero day cache and a resource share of zero, unfortunately those projects are also some of the ones with work available 99% of the time.

Not all Projects accept 0 as a backup project value, but setting it to 1 should result in just the odd Task being sent every now & then. And they should honour cache settings, regardless of how small they might be (unless they've got similar issues to what Rosetta had for a while with their Estimated completion times for new Tasks/new applications were barely a fraction of what they should have been).

---

Grant
Darwin NT

It doesn't matter how many old people die of it, the important thing is how many young people die of it, and that we let them die, so they don't make a weaker next generation.

"[The state] must see to it that only those who are healthy shall beget children; that there is only one infamy, namely, for parents that are ill or show hereditary defects to bring children into the world and that in such cases it is a high honour to refrain from doing so."

You're a real POS, Karen.

It's notable what you didn't respond to. Tbf I can hardly be surprised

The only things I've snipped is where you're going over the same thing twice. You do talk a hell of a lot. Maybe you're getting confused because there's more than one post in this discussion, and I haven't replied to the "missing" parts yet?

Why would I get confused. Facts don't change from one message to the next.

I meant you thought I'd missed part of what you wrote. I don't reply to you twice when you state the same thing twice. And since you go on and on, I only reply to some each day or I'd die of boredom.

Which things about bust companies did I forget? The ones I listed that went bust before any Gov't restrictions, or the none/nil/zero that went bust after lockdowns came into effect?
You were supposed to tell me about them. You didn't. You couldn't. Because there aren't any.
You claimed companies went bust because of Gov't legislation.
You lied to support a point that wasn't true because you don't know what you're talking about.

That would be (UK only):
Oasis and Warehouse Group
Debenhams
Cath Kidston
Autonomy Clothing
Houseology
Brighthouse
Laura Ashley
Soak.com

And that's just the ones I could find in the UK with a quick search.

We've covered this. The Gov't aren't using taxes to support the consequences of the pandemic.

Pity about all those Furlough things for employees off work, and SEISS and so forth.

And, of course, vastly increasing amounts of public money have been put into cancer testing and treatment over the last 25 years, which people of your sociopathic ilk complained about because of the cost.
It's pretty typical of those who think we should pay more for one thing rather than another are never interested in putting any amount towards either.

Putting the money into the one that kills most would be a start....

If evolution was a factor in either, all the people with cancer would die out and they wouldn't pass it onto their children, according to you.
That gets a "lol" from me, if nothing else.

It does with child cancers. And with those you can get as a young adult. Or it would if we didn't treat them, allowing their offspring to be susceptible too.

It doesn't matter how many old people die of it, the important thing is how many young people die of it, and that we let them die, so they don't make a weaker next generation. You can protect the old by shutting them in their homes, but everyone of reproducing age should be allowed to get the virus and see if they're worthy.

[snip]

So you're volunteering to get the virus and see how good your genes are?

Here is another way that the anti-vaxxers are helping us to study the effects of long COVID:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deadly-fungi-are-the-newest-emerging-microbe-threat-all-over-the-world/

---

I'm seeing some compute errors around "Unable to open constraints file"

<core_client_version>7.16.11</core_client_version>
ERROR: [ERROR] Unable to open constraints file: f506a88e740dc1433a9792f2e819aa3f_0001.MSAcst
ERROR:: Exit from: ......srccorescoringconstraintsConstraintIO.cc line: 457
BOINC:: Error reading and gzipping output datafile: default.out
05:40:41 (2928): called boinc_finish(1)
</stderr_txt>
]]>

Same today.
Please fix this bug

---

And yet I don't remember any other car company being bailed out.

Good god, you are a clown. A sad, angry clown, but a clown nonetheless.

All four major US automakers participated in the auto industry bailout. Ford didn't need it, but wanted capital to develop new technologies to remain competitive against GM

The government gave money to a company that didn't need it. The mind boggles.

, Chrysler, and GMAC, so they got government loans and lines-of-credit instead of TARP funds.

Anyone can take a few seconds to use Google and find out things like this. Anyone but you. I think that you are just an attention whore. Twit.

I'm not interested enough, especially as I don't live in America.

How To Multiple boinc clients on the same computer
Although for the life of me i can't seen any point in doing so.

Only time I've ever thought of doing it was to get around a limit on the server. For example Milkyway will only hand out 900 tasks per client. But since they only hand out 300 per GPU, you'd need a 4th GPU before there was any point.

Although.... it would get around the 10 minute wait as per the can't upload and download at once bug. Run two clients, start the second one when the first one has half used its buffer. One of them would always have work (I did a quick timeline sketch).

-duplicate-

How To Multiple boinc clients on the same computer

Although for the life of me i can't seen any point in doing so.

One idea is to have different cache sizes for the cpu and gpu crunching projects

Yeah, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.
If you run one project, and if they're flaky then you'll set the cache to cover hiccups inline with Task deadlines. If you run multiple projects, then set it to no cache, and your Resource share settings will take care of themselves as work is or isn't available. I just don't see any advantage in making something that really is relatively simple, orders of magnitude more complicated.

Buffers are not simple. Primegrid for example has no idea how long GPU tasks will take. Even after running them for months, I still get tasks saying they will take 250 days when they take 4. So to get 8 days work, I'd need to set the buffer to 500 days. But not for the CPUs. Or not for other projects on the GPU. But yes, you add problems like not being able to prioritise between projects so easily.

I'm still waiting for this alledged rinse.

Awww, isn't that cute? Karen wants some attention. C'mere, Karen, let me scratch you behind the ears. Who's a good boy? YOU ARE!!! Yes you are! Yes you are!

Grow up.

It doesn't matter how many old people die of it, the important thing is how many young people die of it, and that we let them die, so they don't make a weaker next generation.

"[The state] must see to it that only those who are healthy shall beget children; that there is only one infamy, namely, for parents that are ill or show hereditary defects to bring children into the world and that in such cases it is a high honour to refrain from doing so."

You're a real POS, Karen.

Why did you have a problem with that exceedingly good idea? You need to understand the difference between killing people and preventing more undesirables from being born. The second one is not cruel.

[quote]And yet I don't remember any other car company being bailed out.

Good god, you are a clown. A sad, angry clown, but a clown nonetheless.

All four major US automakers participated in the auto industry bailout. Ford didn't need it, but wanted capital to develop new technologies to remain competitive against GM

The government gave money to a company that didn't need it. The mind boggles.

Ford and the others argued it was unfair to give money to one and not the others as it would be seen as the Government supporting one company and not another, they made a compelling argument and got the money. The Government doesn't really care who succeeds as long as jobs aren't lost at which point the Government has to start taking taxpayer money to keep them from being homeless if they can't find new jobs. It's part of the 'too big to fail' thinking as literally MILLIONS of workers would be out of a job overnight if one of them went under, that's bad for politics.