Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by listenallyall 499 days ago
Me. I'm the citation. It is not the FAA chief's fault - nor is it because there was no FAA chief for 8 days - that a rogue military helicopter was flying above its well-defined airspace ceiling.

https://youtu.be/uFc6JFb2MqY
1 comments
angoragoats 498 days ago
Then your claim lacks any supporting evidence, and that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I can think of about 10 different ways that the information in your YouTube video could be 100% true and correct, and the FAA could still be at fault. You do not have enough evidence to claim what you're saying.

link
listenallyall 498 days ago
The burden of proof is on you, making the claim that the FAA chief and the crash are connected. What's your evidence? I'm advancing the null hypothesis, that they have nothing to do with each other. I also don't believe the Eagles winning the NFC Championship 2 days earlier has anything do with the crash -- are you expecting me to provide evidence for that as well?
link
angoragoats 498 days ago
> The burden of proof is on you, making the claim that the FAA chief and the crash are connected. What's your evidence?

I did not make this claim. I’ll restate my position so we’re clear: I have no idea whether they’re connected.

> I'm advancing the null hypothesis, that they have nothing to do with each other.

This is still a claim which requires evidence.

> I also don't believe the Eagles winning the NFC Championship 2 days earlier has anything do with the crash -- are you expecting me to provide evidence for that as well?

In general, evidence is required for any claim, yes. But in this case, something like “The Philadelphia Eagles are a football team, without any responsibility over airline safety” is probably enough evidence.

link