From Friday, April 19th (11:00 PM CDT) through Saturday, April 20th (2:00 PM CDT), 2024, ni.com will undergo system upgrades that may result in temporary service interruption.
We appreciate your patience as we improve our online experience.
LabVIEW
LabView forum problem!
While I personally don't have an issue with your posts, the reason why you catch so much flak over your posts is because the way you present your problem always sounds like someone who is trying to get someone to write a homework assignment for them.
The hallmarks of a homework "scammer" are generally these:
- Vague requirements, or a list of requirements that appear to have no real world application.
- Great reluctance to share coding attempts.
- Reluctance to accept coaching in lieu of actual code to implement into a new attempt.
To be fair, your self-training will, by nature, seem like homework. Because it is homework - in the truest sense. But the way you present it always exhibits most, if not all, of those traits.
@JÞB wrote:
@GRCK5000 wrote:
Lately, I've been so scared or anxious to ask questions in the forum. My fear comes from someone accusing me of scamming people in this forum. Out of like 70+ people in the forum, I am the scammer one. I just don't get it. I can pass two weeks without asking questions. As soon as I ask a question, all of a sudden I become a scammer. Am I not allowed to ask questions? It's so hurtful. I bet someone here in the forum is a student or works for a company and needs help solve a problem. Someone thinks I am just here to get free codes. That person does not know how hard I try to understand these codes, watching videos online and stuff.
If my question bothers that one person, why didn't he send me a message privately instead of assuming I am a scammer, making me look bad publicly? I know his goal was to make people not trying to answer my questions anymore. It's okay. But why me though?
Don't get me wrong, I love feedback (positive or negative). You guys can notice I've never been disrespectful to anyone despite rude answers sometimes. I am very humble, I take advice. What bothered me is just someone assuming I am a scammer or I don't try to learn anything.
No, you have not demonstrated that.
Let's look at this example
Where I straight out stated unequivocally that your data was impacted by bad hardware. Did you respect the advice and give more information about your measurement system? No, in fact, you went off on a tangent trying to make the data lie to your user despite several warnings. Frankly that is very disturbing and I'd fire you in a second for generating false data!!
And now you post that you have nothing but respect for the volunteers who willingly spend thier time to give you the benefit of thier experience to help you with your problems. You can do better than that. If you can't you'll get find that the ignore user button is our option not yours.
To me, this was VERY disturbing. I mean, the insistence of trying to "cover up" what is plainly real data. I mean, if hardware troubleshooting wasn't an option, I would present the data as-is, with an explanation (and an engineering sign-off) that there seems to be an issue with the equipment that cannot be resolved. That is why I offered no software solution to that hardware problem. "Massaging" data like that is a great way to get your company to lose a contract, or maybe even all contracts, with that customer. Or, if the customer is the US Government company, you could be held PERSONALLY LIABLE for falsification of documents and be subjected to fines and/or imprisonment, as well as big fines for the company, and potential loss of the ability to bid on any future government contracts.
Welcome to the internet!!!
You've been here for about half a year and this is a relatively well behaved forum. We are from many different cultural backgrounds and we all know that written B&W text is a very poor medium to convey correct metadata as it would happen in personal conversation (body language, facial expression, tone of voice). Just assume that everything is meant well. Maybe somebody posted before the morning coffee of after a hard day of work. These are all factors out of your control. Try to understand the technical aspects of advice and ignore anything that you think is personal (it typically is not!).
I am not going down the rabbit hole analyzing past conversations. That's completely pointless. Lets move forward!
@JÞB wrote:
<mega-snip>
No, not plainly real data. Plainly false data because physics does not permit such an energy transfer in normal space-time. As I stated! Data that defies physics as we understand it, needs aggressive defense. No defense was offered nor any alternative hypothesis. How could it be taken seriously?<mini-snip>
I should've said "observed data" or something like that. By "real", I meant "as recorded", not "as interpreted", because, in reality, you are interpreting the data. The data show spikes, but your interpretation is that "they can't physically happen". Maybe we should call it "bad" data because it is "bad" not "false". The instrument doesn't know anything; it just records what it observed. We know it's a glitch because things like that "can't happen", so we go show the customer the raw data, then go about proving it was a glitch (and that we fixed it and it is no longer happening), and they decide whether we are correct and it was bad hardware causing glitchy readings, or the UUT actually was subjected to stresses outside the operating environment and needs to be scrapped. What you don't do is show the customer fudged data. That would definitely be "false" (falsified?) data.
