> Imagine you are living in the 17th century But I'm not living in the 17th century, so I'm not sure why I would imagine that. When cm2187 said (https://news.

> Imagine you are living in the 17th century But I'm not living in the 17th century, so I'm not sure why I would imagine that. When cm2187 said (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10832908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10832908): > It's just the only way to present clearly data. I took that to mean that it is now, rather than only that it was in the 17th century, the only way to present data clearly. Certainly if I misread that, then it undermines some of my argument. (Even so, I don't think that the onus is on the doubter of a claim of impossibility to provide evidence of possibility, but rather on the claimant to show evidence of impossibility. That is, even if the claim is about the 17th century, then I buy that no-one has thought of a better way, but not that there is no better way—especially since 'better' is ill defined.)