I'm not certain where the haters are coming from. I thought it was well written and extremely interesting. Sure - there are current limitations, and being able

I'm not certain where the haters are coming from. I thought it was well written and extremely interesting. Sure - there are current limitations, and being able to predict what hasn't happened yet is certainly difficult. What was interesting to me though, is many of our most important choices in life have happened 1000s of times before. Should I buy this? Should I marry this person? What school should I go to or what career should I pursue? These are all questions that can, on average, be better answered with available data than potentially just following your gut. This is the position of the article, and I tend to agree. While the mystical nature of the totality of the machine we are cogs in seems hyperbolic or unnerving, at a practical level it makes sense to model your interactions with the world that way. Taking that stance, the comparison to religion and humanism should be easy to follow, and reflect on. When are you "dataist"? When are you "humanist?" You'll learn a lot about yourself simply asking that question. Which makes for a great ending to the article - do you know yourself? Better than algorithm? Maybe not in all cases, and the data shows thats not necessarily a bad thing.