Posts by Biggles

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Closed to all, but those with stinky feet (Message 28758)
Posted 30 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
Jose, there is a difference. A huge difference. In Leiden Classical, credit was awarded on the basis of work done. That's not happened here on Rosetta. Up until a month ago, credit was awarded on the basis of what you claimed. Could you answer the questions I posted in big red letters (in homage to you, no less), you didn't really answer the questions when you responded to them.

Carl, the devs have given no reason as to why it is impossible to recalculate the credits. I'm a computer scientist with a lot of experience in areas relevant to the project - in other words, I know what I'm talking about with regards to the technical side of things. I'm no biochemist, but I do know computers. If they have all the data it's a trivial process. And even if they've deleted some of the data, as long as they have the results, it's not too difficult to recalculate credit. The only case in which it would be possibly impossible would be if the project doesn't have results anymore. And quite frankly, if they don't have the results then the project science is worthless and we are ALL wasting our time.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Closed to all, but those with stinky feet (Message 28708)
Posted 29 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
During September XS called for opti`s to be taken off all members machines, how many of you teams did similar ? Biggles you posted a bloomin link to 5.5 in September. I know what you posted but it`s like saying I don`t think alcohol is good but there`s free beer round the corner!

What would the point be? I could claim hundreds of times what I should and it'd make no difference. I could underclaim by orders of magnitude as well. After the new credit system was introduced in AUGUST it didn't matter what client you ran anymore. So in September it made no difference what client I linked to.

It's really like saying I don't think alcohol's good (I feel dirty just saying that!) but here's free alcoholic beer - no matter how much you drink/claim, it has no influence!
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Closed to all, but those with stinky feet (Message 28706)
Posted 29 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
I will address other points when I have time. But I would just like clarification on some things from Jose first...

Under the old credit system, would it have been unethical to change the XML files to claim more credit?

Would that have been considered cheating?

Was it always correct to grant what was claimed, or was there times when it crossed some sort of line and became cheating? If so, what was that line?
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Closed to all, but those with stinky feet (Message 28641)
Posted 29 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
So Biggles 306 day`s ago you proclaimed it "C" ....

but on Sept 5th 2006, you were still advertising it by a link on your team forum and still had it on some of your PC`s....hmmmm

If you look back through your post`s, it appears you SEEMED to be persecuting those who used it, particularly one team mentioned time and again.

It does seem rather hypocritical of you.

I`m not here to restart a war, simply to answer enquiries !

Carl, that's incorrect and you know it.

I said the project was rife with cheating. I stated nothing about the source of that cheating, I never said it was from the use of optimised BOINC clients. In fact on numerous occasions I have explicitly stated that I didn't view the use of optimised clients as cheating.

And funnily enough, in September, it didn't matter about the use of 5.5.0 anymore anyway. I talked about it because the original poster had asked about Crunch3r. I was replying to him.

I have run 5.5.0 (and others) in the past. Some of my machines still have these clients on them, although what they run now is irrelevant. Once upon a time I was in favour of optimised clients and trying to eke out every possible credit. Now that I've seen the ill-effect that it has had on the project I have changed my opinion to them being a bad thing. And I would like to see the damage repaired, regardless of who it hits the most. XS would be hit the most since they are the biggest team - if they weren't then it would be Free-DC, or DPC etc. It was never anything personal, it was always about trying to persuade them (them meaning all users on all teams that ran optimised clients) that a change in credit system and a backdating was a good idea.

The biggest problem is that everybody seems so set in their ways and never change their views in light of new information.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Closed to all, but those with stinky feet (Message 28631)
Posted 28 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
Biggles you dont know when to quit, don't you?

Want to keep the issue going? Do so at your risk.

When I quit won't be decided by you Jose. And as far as I'm aware, I'm not under any threat. I'm not breaking any rules, I'm not making baseless accusations, I'm not hassling people, I'm not offending people. I'm also not making threats.

carl.h, again, choice quoting has changed the meaning of what I said. If you had quoted the full sentence, which was "It's still on some of my PCs, but will come off in time when I visit them." then it'd have been obvious that I do fully intend to eradicate it when I can. I simply haven't been able to yet.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Closed to all, but those with stinky feet (Message 28623)
Posted 28 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
Tony, I apologise I appear to have taken this thread off topic but it is merely to show the type of hypocrisy that is/was going on.Sorry there is more...

Biggles said like an angel...
What about the math based on XS having advocated the use of optimised clients since the 31st of December 2005? This thread has talked about optimised clients and encouraged the use of them since the day after it was posted. I don't believe that it took three and a half months for XS to notice that part of the setup guide. Optimised clients and the subsequent overclaiming of credit was widespread before April.

But failed to disclose to this forum on 5th September..
But I'm not here to tell you what to do. Crunch3r's 5.5.0 client can be found here(link to crunch3rs client). Just be aware that the credit you claim with it will be far higher than you will be awarded and that some people view it's use as cheating. I just don't feel it's relevant anymore as both SETI and Rosetta have moved on and it does nothing apart from inflate benchmarks. It's still on some of my PCs, but will come off in time when I visit them. 3rd post down.

I just want to get rid of the hypocrisy of some and the idea it was 2-5 teams using this client, it is patently untrue and XS took the brunt of it, moved on and declared it illegal where they were concerned which appears more than any other team have done.

Saying I don`t think it`s a good idea then providing a link to it seem`s pretty silly imho.

Me, I think the whole of Boinc should be wiped out and started again, after all it`s only fair and right eh ?

How can you accuse me of being a hypocrite? I explicitly stated in the post you PARTIALLY quoted "With that in mind I no longer recommend that people use Crunch3r's 5.5.0 BOINC client."

It was mentioned only in the interests of completeness and to give a better understanding before the guy came across a reference to it. I even linked back to the R@H boards and my own posts about why it was bad.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System (Message 28013)
Posted 21 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
Biggles: I think you need a crash course on the meaning and the usage of the word ex post facto. As it is used in common law and regular law it has a very specific meaning and it is not even close to the one you are giving.

Whilst my Latin is a touch rusty these days, I know exactly what it means. It has been claimed by numerous people that it would be unfair to backdate the credits because they were awarded according to the use of optimised clients which were not (and still aren't for that matter) banned. Of course, optimised clients now are irrelevant due to the new credit system.

However, the concept of ex post facto applies equally to the fact that the new system has retroactively affected the way teams can overtake other teams.

If the old credit system were still in place, then the DPC would be getting more than 300,000 per day in all likelihood. But the goalposts have been shifted with a new credit system that makes competition much harder. I have issues with that.

Ah From the description of the projects you belong, I can see why the animus against XtremeSystems. Now, I know : it has nothing to do about credits but a lot about personalities.

They are just our biggest teams. We run pretty much everything, including nearly all BOINC projects, all the prime number projects, and several others besides. In fact, off the top of my head, the only projects we don't run are Cuboids, Boitho and one of the key counting projects.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System (Message 27968)
Posted 21 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
My point in saying "get on this much earlier" meant why didn't you get on Rosetta much earlier?Had you been on the project in force last January you'd have had the same chance and opportunity that any other team to be #1.
You evidently didn't and now you want a second chance and that second chance to come at the price of what the top teams did being rolled into the back room out of sight.

We have been around on Rosetta for a while. We weren't interested in diverting power from our large GIMPS, SETI or F@H teams to take number one. We still aren't. I'm bothered by things as a matter of principle. Nobody is penalising XS as they make an assault on WCG, but the new credit system penalises any team that makes an assault on Rosetta.

As to making it a personal attack, that was based on what I saw on the stats pages. The person calling for the zeroing of points and starting over is also the head of the currently #2 largest producing team with the most to gain from such an action. What other conclusion could I possibly draw?

That you can't read perhaps?

The currently 2nd largest producing team is Anandtech.

As to XS only getting 1/3 of what we did get, again you are wrong.
Jan 1 to Aug 25, almost 8 full months..Optimised files used from Mid April to end of August. 3.5/8ths of the total working with the stock client..
Care to revise your comments as to what percentage of what we have now would still be there? Now matter what math you use it's way beyond the 1/3 you suggest.

What about the math based on XS having advocated the use of optimised clients since the 31st of December 2005? This thread has talked about optimised clients and encouraged the use of them since the day after it was posted. I don't believe that it took three and a half months for XS to notice that part of the setup guide. Optimised clients and the subsequent overclaiming of credit was widespread before April.

As to if the scoring system changed at WCG and we got 1/3 of the amount we got now, would we still be able to catch EasyNews..The answer is yes, we'd tripple the machines or quadruple them, whatever it took.
You just don't understand goal oriented people.You do what it takes to get to what your striving for..

I guess EasyNews were a bad example, simply because you're only at 25% of their production. A better example would be that of IBM. You outproduce them by around 170,000 a day, going by yesterday's production. But you're also 191 million points behind them, meaning that it's going to take over 1,000 days to catch them. If the scoring changed and everybody had their production drop to 1/3rd of current levels but the same scores were kept, it would then take over 3,000 days - seven years.

I do understand goal oriented people perfectly well. Whilst saying you would triple or quadruple your production to catch them is nice fighting talk, it's also meaningless unless it's backed up, which it isn't at the moment.

It's funny that people rail against the idea of backdating credit on the basis of ex post facto, when keeping the current scores is also ex post facto - because the old scores reflect the fact that the old credit system made for far more credit being awarded than should have been.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System (Message 27938)
Posted 21 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles

We are going to catch Easynews. BTW we are using standard clients in WCG and we are bound by a quorum of 3 and we dont have our full team assembled and yet we are moving past many teams in a flash.

Think about it for a minute Jose. Easynews have 882 million points. Yesterday XS earned 750,000 points.

Now imagine the scoring changed and that 750,000 a day turned into 250,000 a day, but that Easynews kept 882 million points.

You would still be doing the same amount of work, but it would three times harder to catch them.

Would it be fair to change the scoring system and then make it more difficult for you to catch anyone else?
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System (Message 27929)
Posted 21 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles

You don't see the problem because you don't want to see it.
Look at the D2OL stats page. What do people see? They see the NEW stats and thats all they see unless they go looking for the OLD stats.
XS has been through this before and there were no optimised clients in D2OL, it was pure determination that got us to #1 and the science end had huge amounts of work done in that drive.
People do not "see" stored stats pages, they see what is current as that is where their interest is.
XS didn't stop crunching Rosetta when we made #1, that was in June if I remember.
We added another 20+ million points over and above what Free Dc produced after we passed them. Baker asked for more over the summer and he got it in spades from us. When it was over 110F here I kept 6 machines running 24/7 to help him get what he needed for CASP7.
One look at the stats page explains to me your interest. Your team is almost 50 million points behind XS and you are the current#2 producer since XS and Free Dc have drastically cut back in Rosetta and you see that you can never catch up as things sit today.
My answer is as stated above: You want to be #1, go add the people and add the machines and do it. If it takes you 2 years to get to #1 so be it.
We didn't get there overnight. It was 6 months of hard work.
Now you will say that the change makes that all but impossible.
My answer to that is why didn't you get on this much earlier?
You had the same playing field as anyone else this year and didn't have either the manpower or the machinery to get to #1 or you would have done so.
Points don't rule my life, but I am loyal to the guys on my team that worked their backsides off to get to a goal and I won't sit idly by while someone try's to negate that when the reality is that all that person is after is a fast way to get to #1..
Your just too transparent..

So transparent you think I'm on Anandtech? You've just undermined your arguments by making a personal, unjustified attack based on a wrong premise.

I did get on this when the issue of the new credit system first appeared. I said it was only a half measure then.

If a team with as much power as XS were to run Rosetta for a year, they would get only 1/3rd of the credit that XS did in the first year of Rosetta. Why is that? Because optimised clients overclaimed by a large amount. That's not fair no matter how you swing it. They could be just as dedicated, more so even, but if they ran Rosetta after the new credit system was in place, they had no chance to overclaim.

Think about WCG for a minute. If the scoring system had changed and you could only earn 1/3rd of what you currently do, would you be able to catch Easynews?
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System (Message 27927)
Posted 21 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
I'd have thought that being as correct as possible is better than it being an all or nothing type thing.

It's already 100% correct, based on the rules at the time.

So was racism and discrimination. Yet thing have changed to make up for that in the past. I went to bed, that's why there was no replies.
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System (Message 27905)
Posted 21 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
Reading this thread will even show you Crunch3rs' thoughts(at that time) on Rosetta, and how his optimized Boinc client 5.2.13 was affecting it.

NOTE: This thread is dated the 17 of December 2005

This presupposes that everyone went to the SETI page and saw his comments.
I was given a link to the posted files where there was no commentary.

XS VS Biggles is saying that backdating to Feb will get rid of most the skewing. I'm showing him it won't as it's been around since day one of the project.

THe only way to straighten out the "scoreboard" is a complete reset, not backdating.

I accept the point about it having been around from the beginning. I know optimised BOINC clients have been around since before Rosetta, but I don't remember 5.5.0 being around before about March or April. It had the biggest effect. XS VS (I think) said that XS never used optimised clients before April, if that were the case then backdating to February would completely clear XS at least of any overclaims.

As I said earlier, it shouldn't be that difficult to backdate to the beginning anyway, but even if I'm wrong in that, I'd rather see backdating to February. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would clean things up a lot, by 2/3 maybe even 3/4. I'd have thought that being as correct as possible is better than it being an all or nothing type thing.
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System (Message 27904)
Posted 21 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles

An interesting point. When XS got into Rosetta in January 2006 we were months behind some teams here.We had to overcome that and we did it by going from the orginal 65 members to a max of over 600 registered members.We added machines. I went from running 2 to running a max of 6. Now a lot of those didn't crunch on a regular basis, a lot just came at our attempt at a million point day and then stopped.
The point is we had to grow to catch the top teams and that option is just as open today as it was back then.

In January, the credit system was the same as it had been when those other teams started. That old credit system made it a whole lot easier for you to make up positions. Think of it this way, if the new credit system had come into effect in February, would XS have anywhere near the score they do now? No - but you would still have done the same amount of work.

Speaking just for myself, I would have no issue with backdating my credits to day one.That is me speaking strickly for myself and not for XS.
Starting from zero says to those that what you did was worthless and insults their effort.
Sort of like:" Up till now this was all a trial, now we'll do the real thing"

Starting from zero doesn't say it was worthless. The work was still done, and the sensible thing to do would be to have a snapshot of the final stats. So everybody would see that XS did more work than anyone else. Starting from zero just recognises that there's now a new credit system and counting things from that. We can't change the new credit system to fit the old one, so the other option would be to change the old one to fit the new one. And that would be backdating, which is a controversial one. But leaving things as is, and adding new credit straight on top of the old ones is a bad idea that'll have effects for years.

A complete reset may be the ONLY way if you want to only count the work that was done from today onward but what does that say to the people that busted their backside and incurred huge expenses during the first 8 months of the year?
It says what was done is worthless and they're lot of people, myself included, who would scream to the heavens were that done.
JUST me, one little guy: My monthly electric bill was an additional $150.00-$200.00 higher during that period, all atributable to running the extra PC's for rosetta. We'll forget the $15,000.00 worth of equipment that I put solely on this project during that time.
If the developers want to say that my work was not worthy, at the very least cut me a check for the extra electric that I used just for them.
That works out to app $1400.00 for 8 months.

See above. The work was still done, as long as you got recognition for the first 8 months worth of work I don't see the problem.
14) Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System (Message 27903)
Posted 21 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
This sounds like the SETI people who came in 4 years after it started and wanted credits zeroed so they could catch up to, or the ones who didn't migrate from Classic to BOINC until the last minute, then cried that they wouldn't be able to catch up because all those other folks had a head start.


The teams that were here first, and with the most power, are in the lead. Those that weren't aren't, and they better get crunching if they want to catch the leaders.


It's like people coming into SETI and thinking it unfair that the work units had gotten three times longer with the stats being counted simply by number done. That makes it three times harder to catch up with people who were there to begin with - a bit like how an awful lot of the credit done in the first year of the project was from optimised clients which overclaimed by two, three or even more times what should have been granted.

I'm not saying it's unfair people have a headstart. I'm saying it's unfair that it's a whole lot more difficult to get credit compared to what it was only a month or two back.
15) Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System (Message 27879)
Posted 20 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
Jose, my point about backdating contained another option, that of starting again from scratch. If anybody can show me that I am wrong in my belief that competition is more difficult because of the new credit system, please do so.

Vietnam Soldiers said this:
I think that the biggest issue a lot of people have with backdating the credit system is not in what the numbers would show but in that it would signal yet another "giving in" to the same people that pushed the "cross BOINC parity" issue. For myself, I could care less. The work I did stands on it's own no matter what point value is given to it.
I also think many here would be quite shocked to see the outcome of backdating.
What they tend to forget is that at least in the case of XS, up until mid April all we were using was the stock boinc client.
All that would change for us would be any points from mid April to the end of August.
Do you really think that would change the standings as far as XS is concerned?
I don't think so. XS would still be in first place, just the numbers would be lower but then again so would FreeDC's, the Dutch Power Cows and I expect many others.

To address these points, what is the problem with giving in if doing so results in a fairer and even playing field with just scores?

Besides, even if we only could backdate to February, that would encompass all the work done with highly optimised clients like 5.5.0, which I think wasn't available until March or April.

And I don't think it would change the standings at all. But it would make it possible for teams and users that are just starting out (3 new teams and 106 new users today) to catch up since they wouldn't have nine months of overinflated credits (we can agree that pretty much everybody who used a non-standard BOINC client (including me!) has had overinflated credit, right?) to have to make up. That makes it fairer for all future participants of the project.

I said either backdate OR zero the stats. The new system has enshrined the past for years to come, and that's still damaging to the project. It was only half of the work of fixing it to change the credit granting system.

Oh and for what it's worth, it should be possible to backdate credit since the beginning of the project, past February and despite host merging. Running a few old work units again to obtain an average for that series of work units and then grant credit based on that average.

There is just no incentive for a team to make a big push on Rosetta with the numbers (although unlikely the leaderboards) being so badly skewed. Think about Overclockers UK for instance. They were the SETI Classic winners, have a sizable BOINC team and a large Folding team. They have the horsepower to be top producers on Rosetta if they were to turn to it. They also have 1.4 million credits and are sitting in 47th place. For them to make up 73 million credits to catch XS would take years. For them to catch up 25-30 million credits (very quick and rough estimate of what XS would have post-backdating) is doable inside a year.

A backdating would not substantially change the leaderboards. Most teams and users would remain in the current positions. But the credit levels would be appropriate and would stimulate competition once again. If the admins are not going to backdate, which appears to be the case, then they should at least start again from scratch with the new credit system.

The new credit system was a step forward and grants credit in a fairer manner, and I don't think anybody argues against that, apart from perhaps Mac owners, but it just happens to be the case that Macs aren't very good at Rosetta.

But the new system is crippling competition. Only half the job is done. I just want to see it through so the project can regain some of it's credibility.
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System (Message 27738)
Posted 20 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
Jose, stop trying to be the thought police.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the words "backdating", "optimised", "client" and a few others are not banned words. In fact, chances are I won't even get moderated for using the word "cheat" in a post, as long as I don't accuse anyone of being one. I haven't accused people of cheating. I have pointed out that the credit system for years to come will be skewed because all work done in the first nine months or so of the project with an optimised client is worth several times work done subsequently.
17) Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System (Message 27734)
Posted 20 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
It is unethical to change the rules ex post facto. In fact, it is illegal to makes such laws in the US.

In this case, people decided to crunch (or not) based on the rules & credit system as they were *at the time*. If the rules/credit system were different, they may have chosen otherwise, for example crunching for SIMAP. You cannot go back in time to allow them to re-decide, and you cannot replace rosetta credits with SIMAP credits. Therefore you cannot go back in time to change the rules.

It works both ways though. There's a bunch of people who can no longer overtake other people so easily because of the new credit system and you can't allow them to go back and change their minds over running Rosetta in the past either. People decided to crunch or not based on the system that meant they could score a helluva lot of credit and overtake X amount of people in X number of days. That goalpost has moved as well.

My point is that the new credit system is only half of the way there. Either backdate or start from scratch.

Do you KNOW that Lazy actually got the credit from inflated credits (it's usually fairly easy to see if you look at a particular machine - but it's not definite, only way to determine that is to compare old and new credits for the particular participant).

No I don't know that all his credits were inflated. But all the machines that have visible results have claimed more than they were awarded, and it's highly unlikely that he installed optimised clients after the change of credit system.

EDIT - I am perfectly aware that I too would lose credit if there was a backdating. But I'd happily give it all up to properly correct the mistakes of the past.
18) Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System (Message 27722)
Posted 20 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
Backdating or lack of is still an issue with regards to the new credit system.

It handicaps the new credit system, because whilst the credit granting is now far fairer, it's killed the ability to compete.

I know if I put all my farm on Rosetta I'll have an RAC of probably 2.5K under the current scoring system. That means that if I went flat out from today using the current scoring system I'd get around 75k credits per month.

To find a decent example, I used Free DCs stats for all users, sorted them by amount produced in the past 28 days and then picked someone who I would have outproduced on the month, had I been running flat out on Rosetta for the past month, but who also had more credit than me. I picked Lazy from SETI.USA, he has over 1.4 million credits in total and has produced just under 50K in the past 28 days. Therefore, if I was to go flat out on Rosetta, I'd outproduce him by 25K a month.

Don't get me wrong, I know he has a whole lot more machines than me and could easily outproduce me if he spent enough time on Rosetta. I don't dispute that. He's also a random example, who I picked because he doesn't have his computers hidden. Assuming nothing changes, I could catch him in 57 months or so. That's a long time...

If we take a look at his active machines and their results, we'll see his machines, depending on what optimised BOINC client they are running, are claiming between two and four times what they are granted. So I'll say he overclaims by a factor of three, as a rough estimate.

Up until a month ago, people were awarded what they claimed. Therefore, just under 1.4 million of his credits were awarded under the old system. If we divide that by 3, given that's what I estimate his average overclaim to be, we get... ~460,000 credits.

Now if Lazy had 460K credits, which is a rough estimate of what he would have had we had the new credit system all along, then I could catch him in about 18 months.

Do you see the problem?

In my case it will take 39 months for the effects of the old credit system to be eradicated.

The new credit system was necessary to be fair, but it has made competition MUCH harder without backdating. So either backdating must happen OR stats have to be started again from scratch.

I'd like to hear opposing views and counter arguments.
19) Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System (Message 27712)
Posted 20 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
I was actually trying to get back to a serious discussion.

If you have a contention with it, let's hear it.
20) Message boards : Number crunching : Another discussion on the New Credit System (Message 27708)
Posted 20 Sep 2006 by Profile Biggles
I think the new credit system is a huge improvement. It's not perfect, but then again, nothing is. It's minimised the effect of optimised BOINC clients, which were overstating credit by 3x - 4x what it should have been. The reason it was overstated so much is that there was no corresponding optimised science application.

So the new system is a step forward. It gives credit based on how much work you do - you do four times as many structures as me and you get four times as much credit as me.

There is one remaining problem however. It's now 3x - 4x more difficult to catch other teams and users. I reckon it's going to take 2.5, perhaps 3 years before the effects of the optimised clients have become irrelevant. That's why I was in favour of a backdating (it's not a banned word is it?) which would have mostly fixed things, or freezing the stats and starting from scratch again, alá D2OL.

Let me be really clear on this - I'm not saying there was cheating. What I'm saying is that the first 9 months worth of credits were basically multiplied by 3x what they really should have been. If there was a backdating then XS would still have approx 50% more credit than Free DC and the DPC and three times that of Anandtech. But people would be catchable again.

It's like a South American country that's had hyper-inflation, but the currency has been revalued so that money is sane again. Except prices have stayed the same, so it takes longer to save up for that 50" widescreen TV.

Next 20

©2022 University of Washington