Here you go

Congratulations.
In a report dated 4th Feb 21, when only 73% of the 4 most vulnerable priority groups had their first vaccine dose, and 27% hadn't been scheduled yet, a statement that said 85% reach would be sufficient for herd immunity was contorted by the worst paper in the country into an unrelated 15% refusal to take a vaccine, that 2 weeks later (3 months ago) turned out to be a 97.3% uptake (when a maximum 97.5% were eligible to take it up for clinical reasons) among those age groups and related cohorts.

The 85% came from the 15%, not the other way round. The government said 85% would be good enough, based on the 15% refusing. As for less people refusing later, that's like I said, the sheeple believing the scare tactics issued by our authoritarian government.

And 3 months later you're still trying to use it as a statement that you're among a large group of people not taking it up as if that puts you into a mainstream viewpoint, rather than the viewpoint of outright cranks.

If 15% of people believe in something, they're not cranks.

You keep writing "no" when every word you say and claim makes it patently obvious to everyone you mean "yes, completely and totally".

What is it you believe I'm lying about? Do you actually think I'll get a vaccine? My appointment was May 5th, I didn't turn up. They haven't even sent a reminder.

By saying you "refuse" to be worried, you're confirming that it's contrary to any and all evidence. If it wasn't, there'd be no need to "refuse".

What on earth are you talking about. If someone says they aren't worried about something, you think they must be automatically lying?

As I keep saying, I'm not worried either, but that's because I make the minor modifications to my behaviour to not put myself in situations that represent a risk.

That makes you a pathetic pansy. Are you the sort that wears a lifejacket on a canoe even though you can swim?

And by doing so, I don't think there's a single thing that I've wanted to do and was available to do that I haven't done, through all the apparent "lockdowns". Not a bother.

Magically, by being safer, you've managed to do things that aren't allowed?

Bug in Rosetta Windows App.

If i'll try to use 2 instances of Boinc for Rosetta i get an error on all WU's crunched in the second instance at WU startup.
It's not possible to use 2 active instances at the same time. The later activated instance errors out every WU.

It's not a problem of the Instance System on my systems (works fine with other projects, except WCG MIP wich is using the same Rosetta App).
The 3900X got 64GB of Ram for 24 threads, it should not be an memory problem.

Working with Boinc instances on my Linux System works fine with Rosetta. Machines have the same memory / thread size.

Example WU: https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=1383239722

It looks like starting Rosetta from 2 different Directories at the same time will run in an error on Windows systems.

---

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

---

Grant
Darwin NT

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

<core_client_version>7.16.11</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Incorrect function.
 (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)</message>
<stderr_txt>
command: projects/boinc.bakerlab.org_rosetta/rosetta_4.20_windows_x86_64.exe -run:protocol jd2_scripting -parser:protocol pre_helix_boinc_v1.xml @helix_design.flags -in:file:silent pre_helical_bundles_round1_attempt1_SAVE_ALL_OUT_IGNORE_THE_REST_5zl5yc4k.silent -in:file:silent_struct_type binary -silent_gz -mute all -silent_read_through_errors true -out:file:silent_struct_type binary -out:file:silent default.out -in:file:boinc_wu_zip pre_helical_bundles_round1_attempt1_SAVE_ALL_OUT_IGNORE_THE_REST_5zl5yc4k.zip @pre_helical_bundles_round1_attempt1_SAVE_ALL_OUT_IGNORE_THE_REST_5zl5yc4k.flags -nstruct 10000 -cpu_run_time 28800 -boinc:max_nstruct 20000 -checkpoint_interval 120 -database minirosetta_database -in::file::zip minirosetta_database.zip -boinc::watchdog -boinc::cpu_run_timeout 36000 -run::rng mt19937 -constant_seed -jran 1240084
Using database: database_357d5d93529_n_methylminirosetta_database

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>
]]>

Few examples:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=1235909939
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=1235751056
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=1235940406

It takes less time to click and read and discover something you don't know than it takes for you to write that you don't know while remaining ignorant.
Your priority seems to be to maintain your ignorance at all costs. To be fair, you've been very successful. Well done.

And if you had been in a different country I would have gleaned no information. The forum should have a flag next to our names.

Which is a bit of a surprise, seeing as you don't seem to have a single clue what's going on in this country, in spite of you directly referring to it.

I know exactly what's going on, all I didn't know was which grant you were claiming.

What's apparent is you either know nothing or everything you do know is wrong - which seems to be the way you prefer it.
Not sure if I've already used this phrase here but "glorying in your own ignorance" seems to be one of your key aspirations.
Successfully achieved too, I might add. So much winning.

Why on earth do you think it's important that I know of every single grant available in my country? I only concern myself with what's applicable to me.

There are a couple of reasons why creating money doesn't cost anything at this time, some of which I've pointed out, but you didn't understand them and you seem strangely wedded to an idea that doesn't now, nor has it ever existed, so it would be pointless for me repeat it.

"Economics swots at the Asian Development Bank told Bloomberg this week they reckoned the global cost of coronavirus would be almost £3.5 TRILLION – about a third of what WW2 cost in today's money.......And just to remind you, when we won the war on May 8 1945 we borrowed a mere £27Billion (in today's terms) from the US to help rebuild Britain. We finished paying that loan on New Year's Eve 2006. The coronavirus bill is going to be well in excess of £300Billion. And at the same repayment rate you and me will be paying for this until the year 2740."

Because I've followed this type of conversation before I know you're thinking you've found the flaw in this whole scheme.
Except... the BoE have been asked this question directly and it's become quite embarrassing to them.
Their current answer is "let's get back to you on that..." and nothing has been heard back since that I'm aware of.
The problem isn't that <I> believe anything one way or another.
The problem is that the BoE are struggling to find a reason why it isn't true.
And in the meantime, the same thing is happening in the EU, the US and the UK.

You do love to waffle don't you? That entire paragraph contains no information at all. Money is not a thing like gold. If I can produce 1000 gold bars (by mining for example), I have created wealth, there is more of raw material which is useful. But if I print a load of money, the world is not richer.

Lol! I mean, even after you using the word "dataset" when you meant "sample size", still lol.

Keep your OCD out of this.

So you're saying a sample of 6 out of (checking) 4,446,824 is representative when, further down, 82 out of 36,000 is barely noticeable - that's one thing.
But zero out of (checking again) 152,848 being representative is next level.

6 compared to 0. I mentioned no 4.4 million. If you think something is wrong and you take 6 samples and all come up clean, that's a pretty good assessment that nothing is wrong.

- Crashing while speeding does invalidate your insurance as you'll have crashed while breaking the law

Yeah right. Doing it your way wouldn't work. People speed all the time, so you would be ok if a speeder crashed into you and you couldn't make a claim? See when I wrote off that tractor? I was going 80 in a 50 zone. They paid the farmer the £3000.

- I'm not worried by odds of 1 in 40,000 - that's what I said - but I account for it anyway, which is why I don't worry

If you weren't worried, you wouldn't bother accounting for it. For example the chances of a poisonous snake entering your home in the UK are so small that you presumably don't put up defences against them.

- Conviction for speeding is a criminal, not civil offence, as is non-payment of a speeding fine

It's hardly the same thing as a real crime. Getting done for speeding gets you in far less trouble than nicking a mars bar from Tesco. It's just a small fine and a tut-tut point on your license which expires after a few years anyway. You can get caught for speeding once a year and keep your license. It'll cost you a tiny fraction of other motoring costs. I drive almost every day, and I speed 50% of that time. Yet I have no points on my license. I wonder how that could be.

On the basis that "One death is a tragedy, 25,000 dead is a statistic". You've made yourself clear.

You can't go grieving every death there is. People get run over all the time.

You clearly won't. Someone will for every one. And when the ultimate responsibility falls to the Gov't, they'll be held to account (in any civilised country, which this one might not be)

The only government to be held accountable is China. Their negligence in wet meat markets has killed millions. Any company spilling nuclear waste and killing millions would be held accountable.

As it happens, I work in a public area. The number of paying customers I mentioned is vastly fewer than the footfall passing through the area I directly work in. In the region of 10s of thousands per week.

Then wear a mask and stop grumbling.

You even seem to be extremely confused about who's upset. Blimey!

You're grumbling that I'm not being safe enough.

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

That's been occurring with a varying percentage of those pre_helical_bundles_ since they were first released.
At the moment, roughly 12% of them are giving that error, the Rest are processing & Validating OK.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

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 and watch Karen get absolutely rinsed by you. And your stamina in keeping up with him/her/it is impressive, too. Can a get you a bottle of Gatorade, fam? A towel? Some salt tablets?

I'm still waiting for this alledged rinse.

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

---