On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:41:10 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> I'll say this much: for the price, there is no beating the M4 Mac Mini
> if having a small PC is what you're looking for.

A Raspberry Pi is cheaper, smaller and much more versatile.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:41:10 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> I'll say this much: for the price, there is no beating the M4 Mac Mini
>> if having a small PC is what you're looking for.
>
>A Raspberry Pi is cheaper, smaller and much more versatile.

Yeah, the Mac mini is OK relative to Apple's other desktops, but it's
overpriced just the same.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:21:42 -0500, -hh wrote:

> Today, Apple's M- architecture employs a unified memory configuration.
> The tight integration significantly improves performance, but the
> trade-off is that it isn't "old school" modular anymore. I guess that
> if you really wanted a RAM upgrade, you could swap out the whole CPU
> package.

Which is why it’s an evolutionary dead-end. A friend suggested to me,
around the time of the M1 chips, that the rest of the PC industry was
going to follow Apple’s lead, but Intel has already admitted it was a
mistake doing so, and is going back to modular memory.

On 11/14/24 7:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:21:42 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> Today, Apple's M- architecture employs a unified memory configuration.
>> The tight integration significantly improves performance, but the
>> trade-off is that it isn't "old school" modular anymore. I guess that
>> if you really wanted a RAM upgrade, you could swap out the whole CPU
>> package.
>
> Which is why it’s an evolutionary dead-end. A friend suggested to me,
> around the time of the M1 chips, that the rest of the PC industry was
> going to follow Apple’s lead, but Intel has already admitted it was a
> mistake doing so, and is going back to modular memory.

It really depends on system level trades, and lifecycle contexts.

For example, the need for supporting incremental upgrades after
deployment depends on the expected lifespan for which there will be
software updates that could outgrow the original hardware, so when
there's not much change in software across its useful lifespan, then
there's not much need to support hardware changes (eg, upgrade RAM).

At that point, other value metrics such as lower manufacturing costs,
higher reliability, etc, can prioritize solutions with lower parts
counts and fewer discrete points of failure. Adding a modular connector
for RAM is an increase in parts count and decreases reliability.

-hh

On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:19:29 -0500, -hh wrote:

> On 11/14/24 7:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Which is why it’s an evolutionary dead-end.
>
> It really depends on system level trades, and lifecycle contexts.

Even as we have moved to multi-CPU machines, the amount of RAM per CPU
continues to go up over time. This is why tying yourself to a fixed amount
is going to limit the life of your machine, no question about that.

On 2024-11-14, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> Le 2024-11-13 à 18:59, rbowman a écrit :
>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 22:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:43:05 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apple selling machines with 256GB of storage is bad ...
>>>
>>> Obviously not, if their customers are willing to buy such.
>>
>> https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/13/ifixit_mac_mini_teardown/
>>
>> "Apple drops soldered storage for 2024 Mac Mini"
>>
>> Of course just because it's not soldered in doesn't mean it isn't a
>> proprietary format.
>
> I'll say this much: for the price, there is no beating the M4 Mac Mini
> if having a small PC is what you're looking for. When you consider the
> amount of power you get and how quiet the unit will operate, you can
> overlook certain shortcomings.

I'll take my Dell 9020m (Micro) for about $50 (once extra memory is added).
It has a fan, but in Linux it never runs. Two slots for SSDs (M.2 SATA and
2.5" SATA). Up to 16 GBs of RAM. Runs Linux Mint well (don't have to use Mac
OS).

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-11-14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:41:10 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> I'll say this much: for the price, there is no beating the M4 Mac Mini
>> if having a small PC is what you're looking for.
>
> A Raspberry Pi is cheaper, smaller and much more versatile.

So is a Dell Optiplex Micro.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 11/14/24 8:46 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:19:29 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> On 11/14/24 7:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> Which is why it’s an evolutionary dead-end.
>>
>> It really depends on system level trades, and lifecycle contexts.
>
> Even as we have moved to multi-CPU machines, the amount of RAM per CPU
> continues to go up over time. This is why tying yourself to a fixed amount
> is going to limit the life of your machine, no question about that.

That there's an upward trend isn't what matters: what matters is the
change over the product's design lifespan.

Because when resource demand growth doesn't exceed original resources by
end of life, a capability to upgrade during its life isn't needed. This
is why there's no complaints about ROM BIOS capacity.

For RAM, consider first a PC's lifespan. For corporate interests, the
tax write-off is 5 years, so that's their replacement schedule. For
home users, call it 7-10 years.

So sure, RAM demand has grown, but slowly: a decade ago, a new PC was
4GB & high end 12-60GB; today, its 8GB (to 16GB); high end 32-64GB.

Corporate will have scheduled to replace that PC at least once, coming
up on a second time. This is why corporate IT typically doesn't bother
to upgrade workers' PC (today, also a laptop) but to just replace it.

Home PCs are similar, especially with the trend to laptops: most folks
never crack open to make any hardware upgrades.

And high end systems have been capable of 1TB+ RAM for several years now
.... but how many people do you personally know who have even just 128GB
installed on their home PC, let alone more? Its a niche use case.

-hh

On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 08:36:19 -0500, -hh wrote:

> That there's an upward trend isn't what matters: what matters is the
> change over the product's design lifespan.

How much of the upward trend the product can cover will limit its
lifespan.

On 11/15/24 4:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 08:36:19 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> That there's an upward trend isn't what matters: what matters is the
>> change over the product's design lifespan.
>
> How much of the upward trend the product can cover will limit its
> lifespan.

Of course. So then, what is that trend?

As I've already said, my observation is that its ~4GB/decade or less.

Mainstream users often replace their PCs more frequently, so the
practice of "upgrade at replacement" has replaced component upgrades.

For example:

Notebook:
2017-present: Started with 8GB, hasn't changed.
(FYI: likely to replace this machine in 2025).

Power desktop:
2012-2022: Started with 24GB, never changed.
2022-present: 32GB

Post your own hardware history for the past decade.

-hh

On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 06:31:26 -0500, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <vh9vqe$3v8n4$1@dont-email.me>:

> On 11/15/24 4:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 08:36:19 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> That there's an upward trend isn't what matters: what matters is the
>>> change over the product's design lifespan.
>>
>> How much of the upward trend the product can cover will limit its
>> lifespan.
>
> Of course. So then, what is that trend?
>
> As I've already said, my observation is that its ~4GB/decade or less.
>
> Mainstream users often replace their PCs more frequently, so the
> practice of "upgrade at replacement" has replaced component upgrades.
>
> For example:
>
> Notebook:
> 2017-present: Started with 8GB, hasn't changed.
> (FYI: likely to replace this machine in 2025).
>
> Power desktop:
> 2012-2022: Started with 24GB, never changed.
> 2022-present: 32GB
>
> Post your own hardware history for the past decade.
>
>
> -hh

"The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'."

I believe I've had two machines this past decade. The
old one I'd built, had 64GB iirc. Current one has 258G.

$ lsmem
RANGE SIZE STATE REMOVABLE BLOCK
0x0000000000000000-0x000000407fffffff 258G online yes 0-128

Memory block size: 2G
Total online memory: 258G
Total offline memory: 0B

RAM is cheap and handy to have around. By default, Linux
Mint splits the RAM in two, half of it ramdisk for various shared
memory operations. It's owned by root, but world-writable with
the sticky-bit set. So one can:

_[/dev/shm]_(vallor@lm)🐧_
$ time -p tar -xf ~/OS/linux-6.11.8.tar.xz
real 8.45
user 8.16
sys 4.02
_[/dev/shm]_(vallor@lm)🐧_
$ ls -ld linux-6.11.8
drwxrwxr-x 26 vallor vallor 820 Nov 14 04:21 linux-6.11.8

...so you're most of the way to building Linux on your hotrod.

_[/dev/shm]_(vallor@lm)🐧_
$ df -h .
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
tmpfs 126G 2.5G 124G 2% /dev/shm

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.8 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"There's my way, and then there's the easy way."

On 11/17/24 1:38 AM, vallor wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 06:31:26 -0500, -hh wrote:
>> On 11/15/24 4:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 08:36:19 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That there's an upward trend isn't what matters: what matters is
>>>> the change over the product's design lifespan.
>>>
>>> How much of the upward trend the product can cover will limit its
>>> lifespan.
>>
>> Of course. So then, what is that trend?
>>
>> As I've already said, my observation is that its ~4GB/decade or less.
>>
>> Mainstream users often replace their PCs more frequently, so the
>> practice of "upgrade at replacement" has replaced component upgrades.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> Notebook:
>> 2017-present: Started with 8GB, hasn't changed.
>> (FYI: likely to replace this machine in 2025).
>>
>> Power desktop:
>> 2012-2022: Started with 24GB, never changed.
>> 2022-present: 32GB
>>
>> Post your own hardware history for the past decade.
>
> "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'."

Precisely. That's why I was speaking in generalities and then
provided a personal anecdote. You're doing the same here:

> I believe I've had two machines this past decade. The
> old one I'd built, had 64GB iirc. Current one has 258G.

And how many normal people do you know who's home PCs are similarly so
equipped? Particularly non-geeks/gamers who do fine in the 4-8GB range?

> RAM is cheap and handy to have around.

RAM has gotten cheaper (& rarely hurts), but when there's COLA boys who
are loathe to spend more than $50 for an entire machine, they're not
about to drop $1200 for one 128GB stick of DDR5, let alone two.

<https://www.crucial.com/memory/server-ddr5/MTC40F2047S1RC56BR>

> By default, Linux
> Mint splits the RAM in two, half of it ramdisk for various shared
> memory operations. It's owned by root, but world-writable with
> the sticky-bit set...
> [stuff]
> ...so you're most of the way to building Linux on your hotrod.

Yes, RAMdisks have been a thing .. for decades. Initially, manually
invoked by the user, later as cache automatically managed by the OS.

Apple's OS X has had automatic management for a decade+; one would watch
one's system's swap rate to see if you're significantly enough
memory-constrained or not to bother to do anything about it. Case in
point, my system's uptime is 30+ days and total swap used so far is
still <10GB.

-hh

-hh wrote:

> vallor wrote:
>>
>> I believe I've had two machines this past decade. The
>> old one I'd built, had 64GB iirc. Current one has 258G.
>
>And how many normal people do you know who's home PCs are similarly so
>equipped? Particularly non-geeks/gamers who do fine in the 4-8GB range?

Well, 4GB was getting weak ten years ago. My last decade has been
dominated by my Ivy Bridge machine, which had 8GB and did just fine,
really, and my Skylake machine, which still gets used and has 16GB.
My Alder Lake machine has 32GB.

>> RAM is cheap and handy to have around.
>
>RAM has gotten cheaper (& rarely hurts), but when there's COLA boys who
>are loathe to spend more than $50 for an entire machine,

Yeah? And some, like vallor, are not.

Again, asshole, you pretend that Linux users are any different than
are people at large. It's true that some are cheap. But some are
extravagant. The vast majority are reasonable and somewhere
in-between cheap and extravagant.

On 2024-11-17, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> vallor wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe I've had two machines this past decade. The
>>> old one I'd built, had 64GB iirc. Current one has 258G.
>>
>>And how many normal people do you know who's home PCs are similarly so
>>equipped? Particularly non-geeks/gamers who do fine in the 4-8GB range?
>
> Well, 4GB was getting weak ten years ago. My last decade has been
> dominated by my Ivy Bridge machine, which had 8GB and did just fine,
> really, and my Skylake machine, which still gets used and has 16GB.
> My Alder Lake machine has 32GB.
>
>>> RAM is cheap and handy to have around.
>>
>>RAM has gotten cheaper (& rarely hurts), but when there's COLA boys who
>>are loathe to spend more than $50 for an entire machine,
>
> Yeah? And some, like vallor, are not.
>
> Again, asshole, you pretend that Linux users are any different than
> are people at large. It's true that some are cheap. But some are
> extravagant. The vast majority are reasonable and somewhere
> in-between cheap and extravagant.
>
In the corporate world, the tech refresh cycle fo equipment and that includes everything
from mainframe iron to x86 PCs both desktop and server revolves around how the the
iron was sold in the first place which is usually 1 year of warranty and 2-4 years of maintenance
coverage by the vendor.

So in general happens as the contracts are expiring, the client is offered a deal on the
latest and greatest by the marketing divisions of said companies be it Dell, IBM, HP or whomever.

Bottom line it's cheaper to tech refresh and get the latest rather than renewing contracts on older
hardware.

Tinse and repeat every 3-4 years or so.

--
pothead

All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>

pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:

>In the corporate world, the tech refresh cycle fo equipment and that includes everything
>from mainframe iron to x86 PCs both desktop and server revolves around how the the
>iron was sold in the first place which is usually 1 year of warranty and 2-4 years of maintenance
>coverage by the vendor.
>
>So in general happens as the contracts are expiring, the client is offered a deal on the
>latest and greatest by the marketing divisions of said companies be it Dell, IBM, HP or whomever.
>
>Bottom line it's cheaper to tech refresh and get the latest rather than renewing contracts on older
>hardware.
>
>Tinse and repeat every 3-4 years or so.

This is a hair distinct, but I just ordered a new UPS, same model I
had for the better part of four years from APC, I didn't even use the
new USB cable, just plugged the one already hooked up into the new
one, sometimes it's just time to go ahead and buy new. The fault I
saw last night was clearly not just needing a new battery, but that
the unit was failing. Same shit different date, as they say, I've
been using these devices for 20+ years.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 11/18/24 6:39 PM, pothead wrote:
> On 2024-11-17, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> vallor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I believe I've had two machines this past decade. The
>>>> old one I'd built, had 64GB iirc. Current one has 258G.
>>>
>>> And how many normal people do you know who's home PCs are similarly so
>>> equipped? Particularly non-geeks/gamers who do fine in the 4-8GB range?
>>
>> Well, 4GB was getting weak ten years ago. My last decade has been
>> dominated by my Ivy Bridge machine, which had 8GB and did just fine,
>> really, and my Skylake machine, which still gets used and has 16GB.
>> My Alder Lake machine has 32GB.

I've had no problem with 4GB workplace productivity PCs even up through
Win10, for just the likes of MS-Office, Teams, Outlook, Acrobat, etc.

>>>> RAM is cheap and handy to have around.
>>>
>>> RAM has gotten cheaper (& rarely hurts), but when there's COLA boys who
>>> are loathe to spend more than $50 for an entire machine,
>>
>> Yeah? And some, like vallor, are not.

Sure, there's exceptions such as Scott. But the exception doesn't
change the rule of thumb.

>> Again, asshole, you pretend that Linux users are any different than
>> are people at large.

Looking at COLA, one can't actually believe that claim.

>> It's true that some are cheap. But some are
>> extravagant.

So besides Scott, just who might be these "extravagant" ones be?

>> The vast majority are reasonable and somewhere
>> in-between cheap and extravagant.
>>
> In the corporate world, the tech refresh cycle fo equipment and that includes everything
> from mainframe iron to x86 PCs both desktop and server revolves around how the the
> iron was sold in the first place which is usually 1 year of warranty and 2-4 years of maintenance
> coverage by the vendor.
>
> So in general happens as the contracts are expiring, the client is offered a deal on the
> latest and greatest by the marketing divisions of said companies be it Dell, IBM, HP or whomever.
>
> Bottom line it's cheaper to tech refresh and get the latest rather than renewing contracts
> on older hardware.

Precisely. The era of Enterprise doing in-house upgrades died a long
time ago, even before the migration to notebooks.

> [R]inse and repeat every 3-4 years or so.

A five year cycle works for business tax write-off purposes too.

One can stretch it too, with a "let sleeping dogs lie" policy : let the
out-of-warranty PC say in use until it breaks and the employee puts in a
service service request, at which point you deploy a new PC to them.

-hh

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 16:21:20 -0500, -hh wrote:

> A five year cycle works for business tax write-off purposes too.

People say “tax write-off” as if you deduct expenses against tax. You
don’t: you deduct them against taxable income.

On 11/19/24 5:02 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 16:21:20 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> A five year cycle works for business tax write-off purposes too.
>
> People say “tax write-off” as if you deduct expenses against tax.
> You don’t: you deduct them against taxable income.

Agreed; its a lazy shorthand, like saying Unix instead of UNIX(tm) <g>

-hh

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:55:15 -0500, -hh wrote:

> On 11/19/24 5:02 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 16:21:20 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> A five year cycle works for business tax write-off purposes too.
>>
>> People say “tax write-off” as if you deduct expenses against tax.
>> You don’t: you deduct them against taxable income.
>
> Agreed; its a lazy shorthand ...

Worse than that, a misleading one. It might lead some naïve PHBs into
thinking that throwing away money on expenses comes at zero cost.

-hh wrote:

>>> Yeah? And some, like vallor, are not.
>
>Sure, there's exceptions such as Scott. But the exception doesn't
>change the rule of thumb.

It's a rule of lying asshole, at best.

The -highhorse asshole has also claimed that "the open source nature
of Linux tends to attract the type of persona who somehow believes
that all avenues are one-way streets set up to benefit him (and only
him) as the true & deserving holy center of the universe."

And that's just one of countless similar assholish, lying attacks from
-highhorse, as all long-time readers of this forum should know.

>>> Again, asshole, you pretend that Linux users are any different than
>>> are people at large.
>
>Looking at COLA, one can't actually believe that claim.

Looking at a liar like -highghorse, one can't believe anything that he
claims.

On 11/19/24 8:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:55:15 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> On 11/19/24 5:02 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 16:21:20 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> A five year cycle works for business tax write-off purposes too.
>>>
>>> People say “tax write-off” as if you deduct expenses against tax.
>>> You don’t: you deduct them against taxable income.
>>
>> Agreed; its a lazy shorthand ...
>
> Worse than that, a misleading one. It might lead some naïve PHBs into
> thinking that throwing away money on expenses comes at zero cost.

Sure, but many will realize how easy it is to commit easy tax fraud by
using this 'business expense' to buy a new laptop for their kid.

-hh

On 11/20/24 7:36 AM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>>>> Yeah? And some, like vallor, are not.
>>
>> Sure, there's exceptions such as Scott. But the exception doesn't
>> change the rule of thumb.
>
> It's a rule of lying asshole, at best.

And chrisv makes another confession about himself..

> Looking at a liar like -highghorse, one can't believe anything that he
> claims.

Merely YA lame attack to desperately try to avoid the question posed:

"So besides Scott, just who might be these "extravagant" ones be?"

With Scott presumably #1 at 258GB RAM, what poster is #2 biggest RAM?
Your 32GB? Maybe. But that's the 'high end' of my prior comment:

"So sure, RAM demand has grown, but slowly: a decade ago, a new PC was
4GB & high end 12-60GB; today, its 8GB (to 16GB); high end 32-64GB."

So who in COLA own PCs exceeding 64GB to meet your 'extravagant' claim?
Or is this merely YA one of your unsubstantiated delusional fantasies?

-hh
--
"(snipped, unread)" inbound! <g>

-hh wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

So besides RonB, just who might be these "cheap" ones be?

You sure get off on attacking people, -highhorse. What's your
problem? How long have you known that you are inferior?

Such an asshole.

--
"I've used Linux for awhile; it failed to be compelling so I moved on.
This really pisses off the COLA boys because their "..but if you were
to just TRY it.." argument has been applied and they still failed." -
lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly

On 11/20/24 3:56 PM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)

Called that!

> So besides RonB, just who might be these "cheap" ones be?

I didn't ask you about cheapskates: I asked who was in your own choice
of words the "extravagant" spenders.

So far there's one, with 528GB RAM...

....but who's #2? You, at just 32GB?

Is there really no one else in all of COLA?

> You sure get off on attacking people, -highhorse. What's your
> problem? How long have you known that you are inferior?

I don't attack reasonable people: I note when a highly implausible
claim gets made, for which I ask for them to substantiate.
Of course, assholes whine when they get caught in their lie.

> Such an asshole.

That's an appropriate .sig for you, chrisv.

-hh

-hh wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>-hh wrote:
>>>
>>> (snipped, unread)
>>
>>So besides RonB, just who might be these "cheap" ones be?
>>
>>You sure get off on attacking people, -highhorse. What's your
>>problem? How long have you known that you are inferior?
>>
>>Such an asshole.
>
> (snipped, unread)

In the cola advocates, you found a group of ignorant, entitled,
dishonest, ridiculous, hypocritical penny-pinchers, eh, -highhorse?

You're not the asshole, the cola advocates are, eh, -highhorse?

--
"And what this also means is that the allegations and insinuations
that 98% of the world are ignorant boobs is way, way off base" -
lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly