You are making it seem like the clones managed to isolate are remove the bricking code from their software.
They have not. All they did was take their oldest release and relabel it to make it appear like they are making progress instead of telling the truth that they have rolled back their software because of their inability to fix the problem.
Also they have not made any sort of public announcement to warn their customers about the issue in order to protect them as you have suggested, probably out of fear that it may affect their sales. The only place they are acknowledging the issue is in private emails and only if it is clear that the sender is already aware of the issue to begin with.
Here are the patch notes r4i has released on their site to describe 'improvements' in the release of their oldest software which they deceitfully relabeled as the newest 3.3b release :
You tell me if they aren't trying to deceive their users into thinking they are taking a step forwards instead of taking a leap backwards. Where exactly in there are they acknowledging that their users are in danger of bricking their 3ds if they do not 'upgrade' their software?
HunterB seems too quick to point out any failings or deficiencies on the part of Gateway whether substantiated or purely from hearsay but at the same time seems to have no qualms about hiding or sugar coating any wrong doings by the clone manufacturers.
I would not be surprised to discover that he had a hidden agenda of some sort or would directly benefit from either the success of the clones or the failure of Gateway.
I could be wrong. He might just have some sort of vendetta against Gateway which leads him to try to look at the clones in an artificially better light just to make the shadows in which he paints Gateway appear darker in contrast.
Either way, I personally think that anything he says has become so biased and full of spite that he can no longer be trusted to speak or think in a neutral, reasonable manner.
In my eyes he has discredited himself not because he consistently bashes on Gateway but because of his willingness to go out of his way to hide and sugar coat the more questionable acts perpetrated by the clone manufacturers.
If the probability of no brick in a month is 95%, then the probability of no brick for every month in a year is 0.95 ^ 12 = about 54%. This makes the probability of a brick 100% - 54% = 46%. Do the math.
That's weird. What site are you looking at? I'm looking At r4i news page here :
http://www.r4ids.us/r4i-gold-3ds-news.html
Nothing of that nature seems to be in that page.
I don't even know the purpose of that site, I've always used this one:
http://www.r4ids.cn/news.htm
Probably a backup or something, nothing I've used that's related to R4i ever referenced a ".us" address.
That is actually pretty strange, particularly since when you do a quick DNS Whois, the owners of the two domain names do not seem to match up. The fact that the US version has ads and the CN version doesn't would also indicate that it is not the same owner.
That could actually be potentially very bad for r4i since the r4i.us seems to appear way ahead of search results compared to r4ids.cn on google.
Aside from that, it seems that the site is just a copy for the r4ids.cn one except that it probably hasn't been updated as recently. This means that the admission of the bricking issue has probably only come out fairly recently and not immediately when the 3.3b software was released. It is commendable that they did eventually admit to the bricking issue to protect their users but does not really change the fact they were unwilling to do so at the start.
Actually, the news came out about a day after 3.3B was released, and the other downloads were taken down. The news date is time-stamped at the 10th, but I know for a fact that it was modified almost a day afterwards to give reason for the "update". That would put the age of the announcement at over a week old. Your definition of "recent" may be different than mine, but in relation to when this fiasco started, I'd say it's pretty old.
Yeah. I've been basing my comments on the r4i.us site this whole time, so can't really say when they publicly called the issue to attention.
They really should do something about the clone site. It can easily cause a lot of confusion particularly since it looks just like the official one. Not to mention it could potentially be used to wreck significant harm if the owner eventually decides it is in his best interest to do so.
Simply using the site to point visitors towards more disreputable retailers in exchange for a commission for each referral for instance could cause quite a bit of trouble. People will probably be far more inclined to trust retailers who are recommended by what they assume to be the official product site of the item they intend to purchase.
In fact it is potentially possible that the announcement regarding the bricking issue could have been left out intentionally if this were indeed the case. There would be little reason for someone who was just after making money through referral commission to warn visitors about the issue, not to mention the fact that they would think that such an announcement could scare off potential buyers.
I guess the moral of the story is that buyers for these kind of products really need to watch out for shady business practices not only from the manufacturers themselves but from third parties looking to trick people to make a quick buck.
Yeah, it would probably be wise to email them and throw them some questions about it. Sadly, I'm lazy and It's late, so I'm gonna throw my ass in bed. Good night.
Incorrect. No matter how many times you flip a coin, the odds will ALWAYS be 50-50. This bricking probability has nothing to do with time, and everything to do with pure, raw numbers. So far, the odds are 95% that you are safe. This will only change based upon the number of confirmed users with bricks as opposed to those without. The length of time has nothing to do with this whatsoever.
No matter what, your premise is faulty, either way. Probability law is that it doesn't matter how many times you run the odds; the previous "roll" doesn't change the outcome of the next one. Period.
I don't see things the way you do.
First, using the old firmware is the single most logic thing to do for now, their priority is to not get any more handhelds broken in this point. They could try to update the current firmware but it would require time not only to fix the problem but to actually test the firmware to ensure it is safe... by then many more of their clients would be affected.
Second, by relabing the old firmware as a new version they avoid confusion as some people would be reluctant to downgrade their firmwares. By labiling the old firmware as the newest version, people will instictively want to upgrade to this version which is easier than explaining that you need to downgrade because of a virus in "their" code.
You are right but you're wrong. Each individual time you make a try the probability will be the same as each other time, meaning you're right when you say past events doesn't influence future events and thus probability doesn't acummulate over time. But if you make many tries, the probability of one event happening at least once is higher the more tries you do it. Meaning it is not reasonable to suggest someone to use an unsafe firmware, specially if it isn't your 3ds in risk, I might add. I do agree that the methods of calcultion used by Jiro2 are unreliable though.
Edit: removed my post as I repeated what Neo Draven said (I hadn't read the post)
If you toss a coin two times and want to get tails at least once, there are four possible results:
Tail - Tail
Head - Tail
Tail - Head
Head - Head
In the first three results you get tail at least once meaning you have 3 valid events in a total 4 = 3/4 = 75%
If you only tossed the coin once the probability would be 50%.
Which means with two tries we have a higher chance (75%) of getting tails at least once than with only one try (50%)
We're not looking at the probability of the flashcard bricking the 3ds after 12 months but over a course of 12 months in which there is a huge difference for in probability. It's like flipping a coin 3 times, the chances of flipping heads, tails, and heads is 12.5%. We get this because flipping a heads first is 50% then flipping tails second is 50% and then flipping tails third is 50%, so we multiply .5 by .5 by .5 which equals 0.125, or 12.5%. We only get this answer because the previous flip didn't effect the next one, so the odds for each flip is still 50-50. We're looking at a very specific outcome, just like flipping a coin once has a 50% chance for heads, which is what probability is, looking at what the chances of a specific outcome is. And yes the bricking possibility has everything to do with time as that is all there is to relate it too in which probability does allow.
EDIT: I should mention, because there is so little to compare the chance of bricking too, the actual chance of getting a 3ds bricked is most likely not 46% over a years time.
Obviously there is some variable component that caused the bricks. It may be to do with the 3DS hardware, something differing in the memory on them, a bad flash cart, etc. or a combination thereof. Given enough time this could occur to any 3DS with the cart using the "bad code".
RodrigoDavy: Actually your coin flipping example isn't true. You can't base the probability of the next flip on the previous flip. Each flip is a seperate instance that will give a 50/50 chance and given a "fair" flip of the coin you could end up with 10/10 heads, 10/10 tails, or a split thereof. It is totally random!
RodrigoDavy: Actually your coin flipping example isn't true. You can't base the probability of the next flip on the previous flip. Each flip is a seperate instance that will give a 50/50 chance and given a "fair" flip of the coin you could end up with 10/10 heads, 10/10 tails, or a split thereof. It is totally random!
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2006
- Messages
- 1,013
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- Oregon
- Website
- www.ds-scene.net
- XP
- 723
- Country
This is assuming they even have the ability/knowledge to analyze and edit/improve the firmware. At this point it is clear they don't have that ability at all.
If we are going to go with the assumption that they do have the ability, then why the hell did this whole situation even happen?
Your other points are valid, if not super shady as hell.
Actually your coin flipping example isn't true. You can't base the probability of the next flip on the previous flip. Each flip is a seperate instance that will give a 50/50 chance and given a "fair" flip of the coin you could end up with 10/10 heads, 10/10 tails, or a split thereof. It is totally random!
That's what I thought and believe cracker! Is sort of obvious isn't it!
That's what I thought and believe cracker! Is sort of obvious isn't it!
^^
Of course the results are independent! But the more tries you make, the bigger the chance of one of the possible results to happen...
If you want to roll a 6 on a dice would you like to have only one chance to do so or one hundred? do you still believe the person rolling the dice one time has the same chance of rolling a 6 than a person rolling the same dice one hundred times? (even if in every single role the has 1/6 probability the last person would have 1/6 chance + 1/6 chance +1/6 chance +1/6 chance... get the picture?).
Even thou, since we are not sure what kind of error could cause the brick, we cannot calculate any odds, since we do not know the probability of it manifesting itself. If we did know that, then the probability of a brick should be calculate on a "per use" basis, since every time you use the cart the error can occour, and not some random time lapse like a month..
Of course the results are independent! But the more tries you make, the bigger the chance of one of the possible results to happen...
If you want to roll a 6 on a dice would you like to have only one chance to do so or one hundred? do you still believe the person rolling the dice one time has the same chance of rolling a 6 than a person rolling the same dice one hundred times? (even if in every single role the has 1/6 probability the last person would have 1/6 chance + 1/6 chance +1/6 chance +1/6 chance... get the picture?).
Even thou, since we are not sure what kind of error could cause the brick, we cannot calculate any odds, since we do not know the probability of it manifesting itself. If we did know that, then the probability of a brick should be calculate on a "per use" basis, since every time you use the cart the error can occour, and not some random time lapse like a month..
I should add that 3dslink also has a similar warning: http://www.3dslink.com/download/
At least the cloners are honest about the risks, and provided older firmware without the brick code, whereas Gateway pretends everything's just peachy (when it's not) and continue telling people to use the newer buggy firmware which has a risk of bricking people's machines. Gateway has an ego problem, and they're completely off the wall with their behavior.
