[QUOTE=TheMawn;362452]P.S. I've been searching for an atheist equivalent for the turn of phrase "Thank God" to no avail for years. Does anyone know of one?[/QUOTE]I find that "Thank $DEITY" works well. Readers can assign whatever value they like to the variable, including null (or nil), and everyone is happy.

[QUOTE=xilman;362818]I find that "Thank $DEITY" works well. Readers can assign whatever value they like to the variable, including null (or nil), and everyone is happy.[/QUOTE]

Brilliant!!! :bow:

But how do you implement that in an audio stream? :wink:

[QUOTE=chalsall;362821]Brilliant!!! :bow:

But how do you implement that in an audio stream? :wink:[/QUOTE]

Taking a cue from Portal, "Thank *insert deity here*." :smile:

Not sure if this is to be posted here or elsewhere, last night I got worried (again) of the fact that I am not finding (too many) factors in my TF quest and I took all the 336M range from 65 to 66 bits. That was 22302 exponents (twenty-two thousands, three hundred and two), all unreserved. This was about 9-10 hours on 4 GPU cards, gave me about 500 GHzD and found about 350 factors on the way (that is, ~350 exponents cleared).

So, it is ok, we can find factors. Normal work resumed.

[QUOTE=LaurV;363015]So, it is ok, we can find factors. Normal work resumed.[/QUOTE]

Well, according to [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/2423ae6e8f696d5e7d1447de91ca35a6/"]your stats[/URL], you're actually slightly ahead of the predicted find rate. So you know, the predicted rate is based on a linear regression of the overall GPU72's empirical find rate for each bit level.

[QUOTE=LaurV;363015] Normal work resumed.[/QUOTE]

Normal???

[QUOTE=petrw1;363019]Normal???[/QUOTE]
i.e. TF to 74 at LL front on two 580's and TF to 73 at LL front on a 7970, but in fact, this "normality" is going to be broken soon, following the last discussions I switched the preference to DC-TF range. Old work still queued, but it will be finished soon, like end of the year.

@chalsall: not sure what you what to show me, but the most of the saved work in the last time, which can be seen on that graphic, is due to your and kracker's "aliens" who did P-1 work for me, and also few of my CPUs who did P-1. Only about 15-20% is due to factors found by TF ("exotic" ranges, not assigned by gpu72, where I found the most of the factors are not shown on those tables). That is why I always have this feeling (it can be subjective) that I am finding too less factors by TF to 74. However, I will continue to TF to 74 for a while... still in debt to you and kracker :blush: (well, excepting the fact that you let me "keep" the TF credit, hehe, I have already a big "surplus" of TF since the third card is in the game, and you stopped your aliens, and kracker stopped his - and he did not say anything about few of my cores which did P-1 for him :razz: in this time, that was just for fun and I wanted to see his face when he saw it, but maybe he didn't see it yet, he said he is not interested in "credit" and maybe he does not check the stats often... well, xmas, everybody busy... hehe)

[QUOTE=chalsall;363016]the predicted rate is based on a linear regression of the overall GPU72's empirical find rate for each bit level.[/QUOTE]
It escaped me first time, and I don't want to mix it with the previous gibberish in my post.

If you do that, then it is wrong. The cheaters will lower the rate in time. You have to use the "theoretical" 1/b, where b is the bitlevel. For example: if I do TF to 74 in a "fresh" range, i.e. where no P-1 was done, then my chances to find a factor is about 1 in 74. James' site has a nice calculus somewhere.

[QUOTE=LaurV;363023]@chalsall: not sure what you what to show me, but the most of the saved work in the last time, which can be seen on that graphic, is due to your and kracker's "aliens" who did P-1 work for me, and also few of my CPUs who did P-1.[/QUOTE]

Not the graphs -- I'm referring to the "Predicted" vs. "Found" columns in the table at the top of the page. In the "LL TF" range you've found 211 factors, instead of the 206.036 predicted based on the overall "kill" rate.

Edit: Cross posted... WRT "cheaters", we actually haven't had this problem. This was actually one of the reasons why this feature was implemented -- to be able to determine if anyone was "gaming" the system.

And, WRT James' calculus, yes. But I'm more of an empirical kind of guy....

I just did notice. Thanks for the [SIZE="1"]two [/SIZE]P-1. :smile:

[QUOTE=LaurV;363023]i.e. TF to 74 at LL front on two 580's and TF to 73 at LL front on a 7970, but in fact, this "normality" is going to be broken soon, following the last discussions I switched the preference to DC-TF range. Old work still queued, but it will be finished soon, like end of the year.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for helping out during Jerry's "blow-out". Craig has also rejoined our little "party", so we're looking good.

And, since you brought up DCTFing... For anyone working down there, TFing the 33M range to 71 would be best for the project. Now that several of us have moved their CPUs from P-1'ing to DCing, we're losing our lead even faster than before.

Not critical yet -- we've still got several months -- but WMS for DCTFing is 33M to 71, not the higher ranges to 69.