Shannon's Journal Discussion Thread, Vol. 5

[Shannon]

Basically.

Look, how about we just skip the extra work for you, and added delay for us, and release it now with said instructions. Gets it over with.

We both know there will always be a portion of people who won't do the recommended loops anyway. So let's just get this out there and go with it with the instructions.

I couldn't do that even if I wanted to.  Ben hasn't linked it up yet because I wasn't finished.  I'll have him link it regardless, but it's going to take some time either way.  In the mean time, I'll keep trying, but at this point I suspect something or someone is trying to prevent me from releasing this, and I'm sick of the crap.

These things happen. I believe it's a good thing, here's why...

I think I know what's wrong:

Since it's such a new program, such new technology, so far beyond AOL's level, the models can't even fully quantify what they're dealing with. Like asking a fish to compare a tricycle to a Ducati. So getting a reliable number isn't feasible. That's my view. I've had similar issues in business at times. Sounds like your models need to be built out a bit more to reflect the new potency. This is a very good sign of progress I believe. I bet that's the problem, Shannon. Try to relax, it's more indication of a large step forward here!

I actually think the problem is slightly different.  I think it boils down to the following things:

1. Based on the models giving me answers that don't qualify as "unstable", but also don't qualify as "stable" - which I have never seen before in the 15+ years I have been using them - I suspect there is some sort of interference from my subconscious or someone or something else attempting to inject "noise" into and interrupt the answers to this sequence of questioning to delay or prevent the release.
2. This generation of tech is so far from what we had before that I have no idea what parameters are reasonable to even use to run through the models to find the best usage patterns.  I've had to do my best to make educated guesses on that.  I'm sure if the answers I got were wrong, we will figure it out through adjusting as necessary.

I'm just really tired of and frustrated with a lot of things right now that are slowing me down, holding me back, delaying progress, killing success, etc. and which are either out of my hands or happening for stupid reasons.

Sounds like we're on the same wavelength there with #2. Said differently, but seems the same idea.

So real-world testing will have to provide new modeling data for this gen, 5.75.7G at a minimum, in order to have a new "best practises" config for modeling going forward. Maybe that info will provide a platform going forward that is accurate for modeling, or maybe new info will have to be added at each new step. Who knows, I suppose it depends on just how big the steps remaining end up being. The bigger the steps individually are, the more of a chance for modeling to become unstable again. Which makes sense as it goes out of bounds and can't fill in gaps to make a prediction past a certain point.

Like I said, this is good news regardless. It means the programs have outgrown the old config for the models. Fantastic. That's evolution. We'll straighten out your models with new real-world data with this gen to fill in the gaps and get them accurate again. No problem. It's progress, it's very good news.

Don't stress, this is a positive! Ben will link us up in time, for now, you sit back and play with the dogs and gorge on your steak, lol . We'll get that new data for you.

I think this program is going to be unusual in it's required usage patterns relative to other programs of this generation because it deals with fear, which generally requires more aggressive approach than otherwise.  I was initially expecting a config like 1 loop per day on, 1 day on and 4-5-6 days off per ASRB2 cycle.  The answer I got was considerably more aggressive than that.  But for other programs in this gen that are not going to meet with such a stiff amount of argument, it may in fact be that we can now run 1 loop per week and be fine.  We shall see.  That difference isn't really helping me figure out the parameters though.