[ninetyninenine]

Objectively he didn't cherry pick. He responded to the person and it got it right when he used the "thinking" model WHICH he did specify in his original comment. Why don't you stick to the topic rather than just declaring it's utter dog shit. Nobody cares about your "opinion" and everyone is trying to converge on a general ground truth no matter how fuzzy it is.

[OnlineGladiator]

All anybody is doing here is sharing their opinion unless you're quoting benchmarks. My opinion is just as useless as yours, it's just some find mine more interesting and some find yours more interesting.

How do you expect to find a ground truth from a non-deterministic system using anecdata?

[glenstein]

This isn't a people having different opinions thing, this is you overlooking specific caveats and talking past comments that you're not understanding. They weren't cherry picking, and they made specific qualifications about the circumstances where it behaves as expected, and your replies keep losing track of those details.

[OnlineGladiator]

And I think you're completely missing the point. And you say this comment thread is a waste and yet you keep replying. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Do you think repeating yourself for a fifth time is going to achieve something?

[glenstein]

The difference is I can name specific things that you are in fact demonstrably ignoring, and already did name them. You're saying you just have a different opinion, in an attempt to mirror the form of my criticism, but you can't articulate a comparable distinction and you're not engaging with the distinction I'm putting forward.

[OnlineGladiator]

So your goal here is to say the same thing over and over again and hope I eventually give the affirmation you so desperately need? You've already declared that you're right multiple times. Nobody cares but you.

https://xkcd.com/386/

You might want to develop a sense of humor. You'll enjoy life more.

[glenstein]

My goal is to invite you to think critically about the specific caveats in the comment you are replying to instead of ignoring those caveats. They said that generally speaking using thinking mode on non niche topics they can get reliable answers, and invited anyone who disagreed with it to offer examples where it fails to perform as expected, a constructive structure for counter examples in case anyone disagreed.

You basically ignored all of those specifics, and spuriously accused them of cherry picking when they weren't, and now you don't want to take responsibility for your own words and are using this conversation as a workshopping session for character attacks in hopes that you can make the conversation about something else.