I am referring to the errors that are produced by the back-end. The code that Martin Armstrong claims he is the exclusive author of. Other errors that you are referring to may be separate from that, after Martin's code that in the pipeline.
are you talking about the "phantom" reversals as bikefront has described it further above?
If they come from the reversals table in the reversals tab (not the elected reversals part), then that is the table which has issues. I'm not using that anymore, but only the reversals table in the dashboard.
But this data has definitely (according to MA) gone through a conversion from the backend system to some other system, because reversals originate from the backend system that armstrong doesn't connect to the internet. So even though these are reversals, the data doesn't come directly from the backend and therefor if there is wrong information in those tables that are on the Socrates website, it doesn't mean that the backend has the same, wrong information. It can mean that there is a conversion problem during the export process.
I must admit, I also have some difficulties to understand why the errors are not fixed quickly. But as long as there is an alternative (Dashboard reversals table), I can live with it.
regarding the IBM Sequoia, this is a bit of a mystery to me too, but I don't care too much about it, as long as Socrates is delivering reliable and good data. It's probably just a marketing thing, but I don't know. Certainly he must have a lot of servers and computing power to calculate all of that data, additionally produce the reports and provide the website to the users.
On the website he write that they are sharing Sequoia with other institutions
That to me sounds like an internet-connected system, where Socrates is hosted on IBM Sequoia supercomputer..
true, but I assume you can still devide the computer into several partitions that are physically not connected with each other, even though this is marketed as a single supercomputer.
From the old HP days I know their supercomputer "superdome" and it was possible to partition it and use it as separate servers, each with it's own memory /CPU slots and its own dedicated storage. It could be the same with Sequoia. A bunch of partitions are connected to the internet and the sensible partitions aren't.
Some website says that the power consumption of Sequoia is about 7 Megawatt. Amazon has
a datacenter in Virginia which has a power consumption that is 100 times more with almost 1 Gigawatt. So 7 Megawatt is a lot, but it should be manageble, if you put it into perspective with other datacenters.