# The TextBlade keyboard is superb, but you'll have to be patient

Posts: 465member
ericpeets said:

Seems your google-fu is lacking. You say: "Wah wah you don't back it up." Don't believe me, my dear. Here's what stack overflow says:
And I quote:

• Addition is always done with the accumulator.
• You need to manage the carry flag.

They even give examples (unlike you. But unfortunately, there's no crayon illustrations
BTW, I gave an example, so I guess you fibbed again.

You also fail because the first part you quoted says ADDITION is always done with the accumulator. Which means, you know, that there IS addition!

````; x = x + y``LDA x      ; Load one operand into the accumulator.``CLC        ; Clear the carry flag so it does not get added into the result``ADC y      ; Add the other operand``STA x      ; Store the operand back to x````

Wow, look at that. It specifically says it does add and then they store the result.

``````
edited May 2019
Posts: 12member
Fascinating one more time. After DBK presents the behaviour of ADC, a link to stackoverflow that confirms this behaviour shows up. But with th comment that there is something wrong with what DBK said.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought it might be incompetence, but time and again you prove that you just want to keep on trolling.
Posts: 465member
More examples for the 6502 (remember, I was not limited by it since I used something else). So carry works like this:
0101
+   1100
--------
(1)0001
These two are 4 bit numbers and if the output exceeds number that can be expressed with 4 bits, the one extra bit is being "saved" as a carry bit in status register while the rest of the output is saved wherever it should be.
As you can see, it actually shows the math results, not just whether there is a carry or not.

Here's another one:

>>>> This instruction adds the contents of a memory location to the accumulator together with the carry bit. If overflow occurs the carry bit is set, this enables multiple byte addition to be performed.

Wow, look at that. It enables multiple byte ADDITION to be performed. Not possible if it isn't doing the addition and retaining the results.

>>>> The 6502 has an 8-bit addition operation ADC (add with carry) which adds two numbers and a carry-in bit, yielding an 8-bit result and a carry out bit.

Sure seems like it is doing the addition!

One more:

>>>> Addition is performed by the instruction ADC. It means: “ADd with Carry”. The carry is always added during the calculation. So, before adding two numbers together, we must clear the carry by using the instruction CLC (CLear Carry).

Hmmm, ADDITION is performed by ADC! And it even warns about the need to clear the carry flag first to get the number you expect.

I found plenty of examples making it clear that the addition was taking place and retaining the result. I couldn't find anything that said it didn't add or retain the answer.
Posts: 99member

Wow. Just more evidence of more ignorance on fundamentals of computers...

You (should) have seen the answer in your own example. But then again, I guess since you don't know 'MC' nor binary arithmetic, I shouldn't be surprised.
Still, let's go through that, shall we?
(Keep in mind: XOR != ADD, though it may look it to: 1) people who's never done 'MC' programming or otherwise 2) buffoons)
I'll also put in decimal translations, even though you don't know what that is... (other English speaking people do)
```        0101  (5)  # content of the A register       +1100 (12)  # arbitrary value from memory
----------
result: 0001 (1)   # content of the A register

```

What the...? How is 5+12 = 1?

I thought ADC added numbers!! I mean, it says right there on the can... ADd with CARRY bit. WTF? Don't these stupid 8-bit chips know what ADD means?

Did it triggered a carry bit somewhere? Where's that? Certainly not in front of the '0001' (is that binary or decimal, can't tell) like in your example. Hope I don't have to write more code to check for that. Then there's that multiplier.. more code? Yech! Still, WTF? What do I do with this?

Or maybe ADC just did a series of XOR ops that just flips bits and that just triggered something to let me know there was OVERFLOW.

Maybe while it CAN be used to create an ADD "MC routine (sic)", it can't by itself ADD, at least not in meaningful way, not in any way useful to someone who can't figure out the diff between BINARY and DECIMAL, certainly not to someone who thinks "DECIMAL" means different things to programmers and teachers. It would also take a lot more code than just one instruction -- even though it has the word 'add' in it. Why do they put the word 'add' in it, if they don't mean it?

These 8-bit chip designer don't even know what 'add' is. In my BILLY-JOE's BASIC I try to "add" two strings together, like this: GRADE\$ = "10" + "5" it spits out "105". WRONG!!! It should be 15!! WTF! Now, they think 12+5 is 1? I better write my own "MC routines (sic)"

Seriously though, I think any further bottom to your utter ignorance is beyond my means to explain. Laws of physics will begin to break down soon.

But I ask again, is there any news from Waytools of any updates? May is ending soon...

Posts: 465member
ericpeets said:

I'll start by noting that I gave a number of examples, but since you are going play games on what was obviously a simplified (4-bits instead of 8) example as well as how there would be a "carry" which make it 17, let me just go to your own example which confirms you are wrong.

; x = x + y
LDA x ; Load one operand into the accumulator.
CLC ; Clear the carry flag so it does not get added into the result
STA x ; Store the operand back to x

So why did you say in post 974:

It doesn't ADD, as there's no resulting number.

Your own source specifically says they are added and also that they store the resulting number. Of course, you chose not to quote that part. I wonder why?

Go ahead, find me a source that says ADC on the 6502 sets (or not) the carry flag, but doesn't actually add or retain the numbers.

Or you can admit you were wrong.
edited May 2019
Posts: 241member
Just over a week to go before we run out of May and run into another delay on the way... let us pray MK finds a way to deliver an update before the day turns May into June. Olé!
Discussions = fine

Bickering and "no true scotsman" arguments = not.

Knock it off.
Posts: 241member
Discussions = fine

Bickering and "no true scotsman" arguments = not.

Knock it off.
Never heard of the "no true scotsman" argument being called that - looked it up and found good ol' Wikipedia has it all covered, while Google naturally has 4.7 million results.

I'm guessing everyone else has long ago heard of the "no true scotsman" argument, but for those that don't and are already here, here's a link and the "origin" of the term.

Origin

The introduction of the term is attributed to British philosopher Antony Flew, because the term originally appeared in Flew's 1971 book An Introduction to Western Philosophy. In his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking, he wrote:

Imagine some Scottish chauvinist settled down one Sunday morning with his customary copy of The News of the World. He reads the story under the headline, 'Sidcup Sex Maniac Strikes Again'.

Our reader is, as he confidently expected, agreeably shocked: 'No Scot would do such a thing!'

Yet the very next Sunday he finds in that same favourite source a report of the even more scandalous on-goings of Mr Angus McSporran in Aberdeen.

This clearly constitutes a counter example, which definitively falsifies the universal proposition originally put forward.

('Falsifies' here is, of course, simply the opposite of 'verifies'; and it therefore means 'shows to be false'.)

Allowing that this is indeed such a counter example, he ought to withdraw; retreating perhaps to a rather weaker claim about most or some.

But even an imaginary Scot is, like the rest of us, human; and we none of us always do what we ought to do. So what in fact he says is: 'No true Knighton would do such a thing!'

Posts: 115member

We don’t post much here any more.  The vignette above shows why.  It documents repetitive techniques used on this thread -

Ericpeets ad hominem bickering persistently attacks dabigkahuna, claiming ‘no true programmer’ would add using machine language.

He even asserts it’s not possible, citing a hand-picked 6502 cpu, different from what dbk coded.

Dbk points to facts that objectively prove these claims to be false, even for that 6502 as well.

He questions why ericpeets would intentionally pick a cpu where the add is more confusing to follow, and try to obfuscate using that.

Ericpeets then goes quiet, and Alexonline grabs the baton.  He doubles-down.

He attempts to distract from the visible bad faith, with a fresh ad hominem attack on a third party, who’s not even part of the ‘machine-add debate’.

He turns the ‘true Scotsman’ reference on its ear.

He brandishes authority, quoting Wikipedia, but then deliberately rewrites it to pervert its meaning, and confuse the reader -

“No true Knighton would do such a thing!”

The purpose and intent of such spin is obvious.  It’s to misrepresent and discredit a target.

It’s unproductive, ad hominem, and contrary to the rules of this forum.

The technique is basically “When caught doing wrong things, blame your target.”

Posts: 24member
3. Principles

Mr. Mims is an intelligent man who knows all this quite well.

Contrary to his characterization, he has had more than 10 email exchanges with WayTools Support, where all of this was discussed in depth with many thousands of words of personal response from us to accommodate his extensive and detailed queries.

Mr Mims knows that chronic misinformation is precisely what reduces posting rights.  And yet he has characterized our response as an unreasonable ban.

He understands well how nuance and the turn of a phrase can bolster, or misrepresent the truth, and he has a good command of language.

We’re not confident in the paraphrasing or quotations from Mr. Mims, because of the many conflicting points he’s presented directly to us.

We can say however, that if he sent such chronic conduct to any editor, a very rational response would be to encourage him to take a refund so as to end the conversation.

We encouraged him to take a refund, and he did.

Given all this, we also can’t reconcile why he’d ever want to buy our product on amazon, since it’s made by the very same firm that he works so hard to disparage.

Whether a person has a purpose for their narrative, other than just to genuinely enjoy the product - that is unfathomable for us.

We simply accept that there are different interests in the world, and we withdraw from transacting where there’s conflict.

The reader can decide their own logical case for what they feel is reasonable engagement by manufacturers and customers.
I hate that I didn't see this crap sooner so that I can respond to it. I guess if you can't defend your position, attack the person and not his points.

First, the characterization that I've had "extensive and detailed" queries is ridiculous. For your enjoyment, here are the emails that I have sent in their entirety. Remember, ALL of the contact was initiated by me. The only thing deleted from my emails below is my full name and phone number. As you might guess, the "longer" emails are at the end when I had been given the run around long enough.

9/28/16: I’m order PDG VY8Z WG5. I ordered almost 2 years ago (January 17, 2015). I do not understand how others are receiving their TextBlades when I was clearly one of the first to pre-order. I want the TextBlade. I believe in the product. I’m just frustrated that I have no real indication that I will ever get the product. Will I get the keyboard before my two year anniversary or are you thinking of pushing the shipping date back again? Thanks for your response.

11/16/16: Are you still on track to ship mine in Q4? I really don’t want to get an update on December 31 that changes my shipping date to Q2.

8/30/17: What is the expected ship date? We are almost at 3 years from my order.

3/12/18: Hi. Checking again on this order. My status page says “Winter.” Winter ends in a week. It’s been 3 years. When I ordered, the product was shipping in February of 2015. You advertised this product as shipping, NOT as in development which it clearly is. I understand that I can get my money back, but I’ve waited 3 years,. Each shipping update tells me that is coming in 3 months. So I wait figuring that I’ve waited this long, might as well wait a little longer. That game has been going on for 3 years. So, when do you HONESTLY expect this product to ship? I also think that I’ve earned overnight shipping.

3/15/18: Sending this email again. Please respond.

8/25/18: Hi. Sneaking up on 4 years. What is the status update. Your website does not provide any information other than “Summer.” Is summer still accurate? I ordered in January 2015. Thank you for your response.

10/20/18: Hi. I have not received any information from you about the status of my order. I assumed that this summer (your underline, not mine) meant before September 22. I think that as a paying customer you should consider communicating with us instead of waiting for us to email you. So, what is the status of my order? Yes, I can see that it says Fall - just like it said Summer, Spring, Winter, etc. REALISTICALLY, when will my product ship? Also, Mims1 (my username on the forum) is not able to start new messages. It says that I’m not authorized to view this resource. I’d like to commune with other users. Finally, why have I not been selected for TREG? No one ordered earlier than me (January 2015), no one signed up for the TREG before I did (same day it was announced) and finally, I have been a beta tested for other companies - I know tech. Please advise.

11/4/18: Sending again...

3/21/19:
I’m checking on this order: PDG VY8Z WG5. I ordered in January 2015 - 4 years ago. As my order is listed as shipping in winter, I DO NOT want to cancel my order. If you do not anticipate the order shipping within 30 days, you should be reminded of the FTC rules for notifying customers found here: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/selling-internet-prompt-delivery-rules. Further, my forum account has been suspended for “suspicious activity” until a team member reviews the post. I’m not aware of any suspicious activity, but it’s been weeks since the suspension. My account should either be unlocked, or I should be told how to activate a new account. Thanks!

3/21/19: 3 things:
1. Again, I’m checking on this order: PDG VY8Z WG5. Please let me know when you plan to ship my order. I don’t care about the other two as long as you answer this one.
2. I’m not a lawyer, but as I’m sure you are aware, there’s a law firm running around contacting people they believe have ordered (mentions about TextBlade on social media was how they found me) talking about a class action lawsuit. They sent me that link and other info. It doesn’t help me get my TextBlade if you get sued, so I’m ignoring them. Thought the info might help you if you aren’t shipping in 30 days, but I guess your lawyers are confident that things are good.
3. My account was frozen, not just the post. I just provided a link ago the FTC. I think calling it materially inaccurate is wrong. If you are worried that people might misread it (as you are telling me that I have), then respond to it on the site. Or delete my post. Banning me seems pretty heavy handed.

It hurts me to do it, but I must cancel my order. I’ve lost faith that I will ever get a TextBlade keyboard. It looks like an awesome concept that might never ship to the “unselected." As the credit card that was used is long gone, you will have to send me payment via (REMOVED).
So, that's it. As for the editor with MacWorld. My email to her:
Long, long, long-time Macrumors reader. I read your article in January 2015 about the Textblade and promptly ordered one. I’ve seen your updates through the years. Fast-forward 3+ years - no Textblade. I’m curious if you have heard anything or are planning on doing another story. Some people who complain on their forums are getting their orders deleted….

Yes. I got a refund. No hassles. There is absolute truth in that. Of course, it's ridiculous that it should come to that. I ordered this thing in 2015. As for the "misinformation" in the forum, there was none. The only thing I did was include the link from the FTC, which I'm pretty sure is accurate information.

Now you have all the information. WayTools feel free to attack my character now.

Posts: 115member
Mims - We’re sorry you didn’t acknowledge the many responses we personally emailed you, and the updates we posted to your order status page.

The FTC or a lawyer would suggest you seek a refund first, and only add to their workload if a vendor doesn’t cooperate to refund your purchase.

As you've acknowledged, we refunded you promptly.  We even suggested this remedy for you earlier, in response to your email queries.

You’re now repeating substantially the same content, which isn’t consistent with the spirit or rules of this forum.

edited May 2019
Posts: 81member
Is there a reason you don’t answer the questions we asked you?

I look forward to your next update, can you let me know whether it will be before 2019-06-21 or not?

R

Posts: 241member
Waytools_Support:

The technique is basically “When caught doing wrong things, blame your target.”

Yes, Waytools_Support; please stop doing this. Please stop twisting everything into an attack on you, as if it was meant to absolutely destroy you or something. Before pressing the post button, it struck me that I could substitute your name for Scotsman as a joke, because, let's face it, it's is very funny - and I wondered who would notice.

What a surprise, it was you, hurt at the insinuation that you're clearly no true Knighton, otherwise we obviously wouldn't be here, would we, Mark?

Give me a break, you take it all so seriously, which is a bigger joke than the way you treat your customers.

You are the one who has let all of US down, remember?

You respond only when the truth hurts too much, and your responses drip with such unjustified indignation!

How about you drop the BS, drop the pretence, drop the fake “woe is me”, drop the “it would be nice if there were no attacks and people stopped holding my sorry backside to account”, and how about you respond to post 993?

Can you give us some real info rather than your pretend offence taking before post 1000?

The world is waiting. June approaches ever closer.

edited May 2019
Posts: 24member
Mims - We’re sorry you didn’t acknowledge the many responses we personally emailed you, and the updates we posted to your order status page.

The FTC or a lawyer would suggest you seek a refund first, and only add to their workload if a vendor doesn’t cooperate to refund your purchase.

As you've acknowledged, we refunded you promptly.  We even suggested this remedy for you earlier, in response to your email queries.

You’re now repeating substantially the same content, which isn’t consistent with the spirit or rules of this forum.

So, what you are saying is that although you aren't following the rules because you offer a refund, it's okay?

The FTC / lawsuit information was included here simply because it was part of the emails I sent to you. I still stand behind the fact that you are breaking the FTCs rules. So, now you want to remove me from this forum too because I literally defended myself from your personal attack by including all of my correspondence with you? Common now...
Posts: 24member

Waytools_Support:

The technique is basically “When caught doing wrong things, blame your target.”

Yes, Waytools_Support; please stop doing this. Please stop twisting everything into an attack on you, as if it was meant to absolutely destroy you or something.

No kidding, WayTools. Stop attacking the people asking the questions and simply answer the question. When will the product ship?
Posts: 232member
You’re now repeating substantially the same content, which isn’t consistent with the spirit or rules of this forum.
You are toxic, incompetent, and unethical. You are the antithesis of transparency. You are the epitome of poor customer service. You are without even an ounce of credibility. You are scam artist and a liar.

And this is not your forum, so lay off with that 'rules of this forum' BS. If you want to quote forum rules, go do it on your forum, where everybody is already conveniently banned. The admins here can do their job without your malicious assistance, thank you very much. Your opinions and interpretations of the rules don't matter here. And by the way, nobody here thinks you are communicating in good faith with anyone, which is also not consistent with the spirit of this forum.

You have ignored every request to answer direct questions about the product development and shipping status. You have ignored the requests to do an AMA. You have ignored the requests to unban people on your forum to allow a discussion to take place there.

Clearly you are a masochist and seek all the criticism you deserve here, and so I will continue to generously dole it out to you. Your Kahuna sidekick, a propagandist shill, is a master of obfuscation and tearing threads off the subject. His cringe-worthy posts about 1980's era programming exploits serve no purpose (nor does arguing with him about it).

The only thing that matters is that you - Mark Knighton aka WayTools Support - have failed to deliver any finished product to ANY of your alleged thousands of customers, 4+ years past the original deadline for completion. And you have The Money. The Money. The Money. Mark Knighton has The Money.

You are a disgrace, Mark Knighton.

Thank you for posting again so I could remind you and everyone else of that fact once again.

edited May 2019
Posts: 241member
Post 993. Can you answer it before we get to Post 1000, Mark, before we get to June 1, 2019, whereupon you'll do a Douglas Adams and enjoy the sound of yet another deadline whooshing by?

MK is not Elon Musk, the business plan never mentioned a Tesla sales model (as the original article this forum is based upon rewrites history with, no doubt at Mark's suggestion), and while everyone might think the TextBlade comes from Apple, at least Apple has shipped hundreds, if not thousands of products over its 40+ years, while over Mark's 4+ years, he has missed the mark time and again, and has only managed to deliver a few hundred prototypes.

You're quick to post paragraphs of endless BS, fake hurt when it suits you, MK, so you haven't suddenly become mute or lost the use of your fingers.

I feel like suggesting that no-one else post a damn thing here until Mark RESPONDS TO POST 993 AND ANSWERS IT WITH USEFUL, REAL INFORMATION, but people's genuine and much deserved outrage is hard to contain.

We are waiting Mark. Don't let us down AGAIN.

Posts: 115member
TBD, you’ve reverted to repeating substantially the same content, of ad hominem, uncivil misrepresentations.

Readers can discern if the tone and content of your posts is consistent with that of a customer who wants the product.
Posts: 241member
TBD, you’ve reverted to repeating substantially the same content, of ad hominem, uncivil misrepresentations.

Readers can discern if the tone and content of your posts is consistent with that of a customer who wants the product.
Prove us wrong, Mark!

The “shipping status page” at the Waytools site is full of the most self-serving BS imaginable.

You speak of things that happened in 2015 and 2016 like it was a few months ago - but we here KNOW the truth.

Customers need only look at the Blog page at the Waytools site - not updated since 2017!

TBD is quite accurate about you, Mark.

And your response follows history once again - you only respond when the truth hurts, when the commentary on you and your achievements (or lack thereof) cuts way too close to the bone.

Your company isn’t “Waytools”, it’s “way too” much BS - Waytoobs.

Mark! Answer post 993. What are you afraid of, telling the truth?

Telling the truth has become a revolutionary act, whether your customers past and present do it, and when YOU finally get around to doing it as well, it will be revolutionary then, too.

Will post 1001 from you finally answer post 993?

edited May 2019
Posts: 115member

Dishing hurt is the routine day job for your cadre, so we rarely respond nowadays since you’re all about baiting, and not learning any useful stuff.

What prompted our recent post was the palpably hurtful tone of how you guys tried to gang up on a real customer.

There were some provably false yet very pompous claims about software engineering. It was obvious chicanery to anyone who practices in this field.

That a self-effacing retiree in Hawaii could do such a remarkable job of using common sense to totally debunk what was said, is amazing.

And in so doing, he surfaced just how disingenuous the motives are.

That’s a truth that feels so good to see vindicated.

edited May 2019
This discussion has been closed.