|
|
|
|
|
by arisAlexis
1379 days ago
|
|
This is sophistry. The OP is stating facts. You are being "vague" by saying that these have been "debunked" relying on the long term "no conspiracy" theory which does really not apply in this case. This is a very clear Bayesian probability problem. |
|
I am not being vague, I literally posted a link to a rebuttal thread.
This is why I don't post on hacker news any more.