OP never specified. Perhaps this thread is in the wrong forum? You seem to know well that misplaced threads happen, so assuming the topic solely based upon its forum location isn’t reliable. Thus, your subjective rationalization, though sound, isn’t a valid argument against someone else’s sound, subjective rationalization.
Additionally, this is a good example of how the flow of conversation can drive the topic elsewhere without anyone realizing it and the thread becoming surreptitiously hijacked. Categorization and focus gets away from us all.
This isn’t a physics forum. That topic has basically no relevance to this forum. I don’t speak in any way for the moderators or operators of this forum but perhaps the answer is … when and if they decide to.
I do agree though that if a topic is closed, a reason should be given publicly, in the final post, for why it is being closed.
Yeah technically that wasn’t the original question.
So why was the thread Kazmroz Science started, and also why was it closed, really? Can I get it back or not? After all this back and forth, I still have no idea what is going on, this closing of threads without explanation. Is it all dependent on what a tech feels like on a whim, or personal interpretation?
I wasn’t the one who started that thread so take this as speculation but I would say … because you were hijacking other threads with your pet subject (alternative to QM).
There is an FAQ for the forums that explains how to use them. Perhaps this section might make it clearer: Keep It Tidy.
So, unless this revolutionary new physics is somehow specific to phones, I think it’s off-topic here. The meta-discussion about it is certainly off-topic.
I only “moderate” this part of the forums, so I neither know nor care what happens to discussions elsewhere. Please take your complaints to the appropriate forum.
He did. There is an information beside the text: the forum category. There are choosen 2 categories: Librem and Phones (Librem 5). So the question is about the phone. And you also can combine logically, that the date he created this post this forum had a lack of discussion for phone-topics means that he spoke only about this part of the whole forum. Another question would be: why would the thread opener create this topic for any other part of this forum, when there is no lack of discussion?
So back to topic.
It also makes no fun to start a discussion where people just tell you “just wait, don’t speculate” and kill any possibility to speak about something that is personally interesting. In another thread I asked what other people think how much up time increase they think it’s possible. I wanted to learn more about software power consumption optimization and discuss a bit around this topic.
Why should people stay active while other people are this kind of destructive?
Those are two very different things. The “science” topic is, mildly put, at least off topic.
Your topic has never been closed, is perfectly legitimate, and if you find Kierans reply destructive, then please re-read it. He’s not wrong and gave his opinion in a polite way, including an estimate, but also adding that an estimate is not as good as a measurement.
So basically, Purism cares not for having an advantage in getting chips that were or will be made in a way that could give Purism an advantage. Or moderators are giving the topic a personal spin based on personal understanding of what is at stake, or worse, just “doing their job” however much harm doing their job that way, may do to future competitveness of Purism. This amounts to censorship based on ignorance or trying to show power in speaking for Purism as a whole while taking away that possible adavantage of superior chips before the science has even been allowed to mature. Take that any way you want. All I wanted was to give Purism that advantage. But some are dead set in not allowing that to happen, because of how they understand or lack thereof of what is going on. Until one understands, one should refrain from showing power as if one does understand.
No, I don’t think that is the case at all. I, once again, don’t speak for Purism.
However, if you genuinely presented any case that could help Purism to move forward on new technology that helps to fulfill their goals, I’d be very doubtful based on what has been presented here on this forum. Why? I’m glad you asked.
You see, if you, in fact knew something that could genuinely help Purism, you wouldn’t be looking to express that here, putzing around back and forth with moderators and kicking your can here and there.
No you would have contacted Purism (Or Intel, AMD, ARM, etc.) directly, and worked with them on a 1 on 1 basis.
So let’s not embellish our illusions of grandeur here and just admit you are looking for a soap box and an audience. (nothing inherently wrong with that either.)
I know that it was still open. Of course he was not wrong with “It is better to measure than to speculate”, but this sentence avoided my question with the goal to stop it. That is was I called “destructive” and I think that shouldn’t be in any discussion culture. Anyway, thanks for your reply.
You are correct that I would have done as you suggest, in going to Purism itself, if I were serious about helping Purism. But, before one goes to the company itself, one also feels out the whole scene as to opinions of others, so that I do not go tho Purism with less than full information from all sides, no matter what my opinions are. After I get the full scene, as to what others think, then and only then will it be prudent for me to go to Purism itself. That is called due diligence. Just going to Purism on my own opinion would be fool hardy, in case I am totally, or even a little not quite right in what is see as a very accurate physics theory. If, after many others also support my conclusions, will I feel safe in going to Purism directly.
So thanks for confirming my plans. That may look like a soap box for pushing my own ideas. It is not. It is about Purism getting ahead of the competition. My way of thanking Purism for taking the interests of its users into account. More companies should be taking that kind of tactic, in their business model.
I apologise. It was not my intention to stop that topic.
I have however exercised my right not to speculate further when I don’t have enough information to provide anything more. Sorry if you see that as avoiding the question. I don’t even have a phone yet! If someone who is actually a developer working on this phone wanted to jump in with well-informed, better speculation then they were and are most welcome.
Wow! That’s an unnecessarily verbose way to insult someone who is just “doing their job”.
My role here is to provide information for people with questions about the Librem 5 phone. I’m not being paid to sort discussions into their correct categories. If you’re looking for a place to discuss physics, you already had one with this discussion in the Round Table category. Maybe that’s why the other thread was closed. I don’t know.
Edit: It looks like the discussion linked to above was also closed. I don’t know why, either. However, I did have to deal with the fallout from it.
As a lowly minion, I don’t speak for Purism on strategic issues. Arguably, I don’t speak for Purism on any issue at all. If you’re looking for some kind of actionable response from Purism, you need to talk to someone in an executive role, not random people on a forum.
I wasn’t referring to you, david.boddie, since you were not the one who closed the thread. And no insult intended, but to indicate that “doing ones job” was one of possible reasons for why the thread was closed. If one has to do that as ones job then, that is just the way it is. The intent was to get someone, anyone to a respond as to the reason why the thread was closed. After all the back and forth, so far, no reason has been given. I do not know how the fallout from this kind of circumstance works at Purism. That is not under my control.
My thread was closed and it would be nice to have closure by way of explanation, why. Without that, ones imagination can get away from ones control and words get said. That also is just how it is. I am human after all. If the thread had not been closed, especially without explanation then, there would have not been any need for all this back and forth.
Those random people on the forum are a way of getting a feel of how people see the issues I put forward on that thread. Especially when I have what is turning out to be a very contentious issue, that of helping Purism get to the forefront of where future chips or a different kind, may be obtained.
Sometimes the message gets lost in the web of circumstance.
Will you please, as has been asked of you numerous times before, stop derailing the thread already? This thread isn’t about you. And this may come as a surprise to you, but neither are the rest of the forums.
So don’t read my comments. Not hard to do. Skip over to the next comment that interests you. I have the right to answer when someone is writing a comment to say something to me, as much as the one making a comment to me has a right or need make a comment addressed to me. That is not about derailing but about commenting about not having enough comments. That was an on topic comment where my thread was curtailed or locked to in fact make a lack of discussion, in general. Very on topic, if you allow such on topic comments. Or you have an agenda against the thread I have/had?
It has been pointed out already that your pet peeve is totally unrelated. Stop looking for excuses to shoehorn your nonsense into every conversation. Also, it’s pretty hard to read over your comments when you constantly keep dragging half the thread into your nonsense tangents so that in the end nobody still remembers what the thread was supposed to be about.
So kindly, please, stop being an ass with an obsession.
some similarities here.