[Smaug123]

I think you may have read a different article from me. The thesis of the article is summarised at the end:

> But if someone claims that the trend toward [X] will never reach some particular scary level, then the burden is on them to explain either:

> If they’re not treating [X] as a black box, and claim to be modeling the dynamics explicitly, then what is their model? Have they calculated the obvious things…

> If they are treating [X] as a black box, why isn’t their default expectation based on Lindy’s Law?

Like, the whole point is that in real life we do actually know things about situations and can model them; we fall back to Lindy's law when we know nothing at all. Further, arguments have justification to deviate from Lindy only when they give specifics about the situation they're modelling.