[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] H.264/SQV3 separation: h264data.h

[Uoti Urpala]

On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 13:10 -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 12:32 -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >> Uoti Urpala wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 11:48 -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >>>> Well, considering the "random" factor is discussed here, I 
> >>>> won't take words for granted. If you want to make your point 
> >>>> valid, give a code example.
> >>> How would giving a code example affect its validity?
> >> You know, what is called "proof".
> > 
> > What would it prove? I already gave the results.
> 
> No, you threw numbers saying something you cannot prove, and you assume
> we should trust your words. This is stupid.

I told you the facts, and I told you how to verify them if you want to.
What's stupid is your argumentation in this thread.

> > You can't reproduce the same ones so it's pointless to give the exact
> >  same code. But you should be able to reproduce the existence of 
> > random variation with the method I gave.
> 
> If I cannot reproduce, your point is null and your claim is absurd.

I just told you how to reproduce the existence of random effects. And
there are lots of other facts that you're _not_ capable of reproducing
and which still are not "absurd".

> >>> Did my description of the change not give enough information 
> >>> about it? It's not like you could yourself verify that the 
> >>> particular example I used behaves the way I said - it's unlikely
> >>>  the random effects would be the same on your system.
> >>> 
> >>> If you want to test the random effects yourself I gave one way to
> >>>  do that above.
> >> What are you trying to say here ?
> > 
> > That you can't reproduce the same random values I did. If you want to
> >  verify the existence of random variation you need to find the 
> > samples that show differences on your system.
> 
> This is pure absurdity.

Why? You couldn't find any stupider and less constructive way to argue?


> >> That no benchmark ever can be trusted, because it has everything 
> >> has random effects on every system ?
> > 
> > That has nothing to do with what I was saying in the part I quoted.
> 
> Let's go forward, will you ? This has everything to do with what you
> said.

You quoted some text and asked whether that was what I was trying to say
"here". So I answered that it was not. And I added this part: "But what
I've said elsewhere in the thread is basically that small benchmark
changes show little else than the absence of very significant changes
either way.".

>  You claim that since every change produce random effects on every
> computer, no benchmark is worth, no proof is worth being showed.

You snipped the part reproduced above where I clearly say something else
and then wrote this false claim?

> If you want to say anything, please give valid arguments.
> 
> This is all absurd and stupid IMHO.

I think you should take your own advice. Try to give some actual
arguments instead of repeating "absurd". Your inability to form a
coherent argument is what makes this stupid.

> >>> Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. What are you trying to 
> >>> say?
> >> Im saying that your point is void because the current code is 
> >> assumed to
> > 
> > Which "your point"?
> 
> I won't repeat myself. You are intelligent to understand and no playing
> around, I hope.

I in turn am not certain whether the content of your post is due to your
relatively low intelligence or if you're intentionally behaving
stupidly.

> >> not contain anything useless, and adding "useless" code would be 
> >> stupid, but I thought mentioning this would be useless as this is 
> >> obvious.
> > 
> > Your comments here are such complete nonsense it's hard to even tell 
> > what mistake you're making and correct it...
> 
> Blabla, playing around won't make your point valid, I say your point is
> void, because code is assumed to not contain anything useless, so
> nothing useless will _ever_ be added, so don't even consider it nor talk
> about it. Is it so hard to understand for you ?

That adding unused code affects performance in essentially random ways
means that changes to meaningful code will also cause similar "random"
performance changes as a side effect.

> Debating with you is really tiring since you make so many efforts to
> show that you do not understand what people say while you obviously do.

I honestly thought that you'd understand the point above. Sorry if I did
not adequately consider the limits of your intelligence.