301–305 of 305 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, so "me being alive today is the best predictor of me being alive in 150 years".
Nope. Everyone who is alive 150 years ago is dead. So the best predictor of being dead 150 years from now is to be alive currently (or already dead).
The ideal solution is to stop reading newspapers/sites owned by Bezos. I give the WP zero credibility for anything that is not factual. Even then they will distort the facts with opinions that are aligned to Bezos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Everyone who is alive 150 years ago is dead. So the best predictor of being dead 150 years from now is to be alive currently (or already dead).
That's the point: you can "prove" anything by saying "the best predictor of future events is past experience" and then pointing to the obvious wrong past experience from which to extrapolate.
No one has ever lived 150 years. Therefore there is nothing that can be predictive of living 150 years. One is starting with something that is known to be incorrect and then working backwards to phrase it in a similar way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they were not informing him of an insecurity. and software monoculture is widely considered a security threat, and so by pushing software monoculture, you yourself are pushing to weaken internet security. GP should potentially be applauded (if he's not using for example IE6)
i’m genuinely fascinated by your thought process here. how did we go from “update your software; don’t use chrome” to “you are pushing software monoculture and weakening internet security”? as for “they were not informing him of an insecurity”, this seems to be deliberately obtuse. virtually every major browser includes (and references in their release notes!) fixes for vulnerabilities in stable version updates.
given the audience here, i think it's more likely that OP/GP is running an up to date browser that is of an alternate architecture that has not "mainstreamed" all of google and hollywood's ad and drm friendly CSS HTML
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the point: you can "prove" anything by saying "the best predictor of future events is past experience" and then pointing to the obvious wrong past experience from which to extrapolate.
I'm unsure where you thought we were talking about "proving" anything with these statements? Forming illogical counter-examples doesn't show that the original premise was false, just that one can form clearly wrong examples of this. No one has ever lived 150 years. Therefore there is nothing that can be predictive of living 150 years. One is starting with something that is known to be incorrect and then working backw…