3 ms·
Yes, they did; once. Which is far, far outweighed by the hundreds of investigations in which they did not. The exception which proves the rule. What's Tesla's
by dingaling 9y ago
Yes, they did; once. Which is far, far outweighed by the hundreds of investigations in which they did not.
The exception which proves the rule.
What's Tesla's batting average? 50%?
- bloodorange 9y agoSo many keep quoting this but I fail to see how exceptions prove rules. In fact they contribute to disproving whatever it is that they are an exception for.
- Dylan16807 9y agoPeople misuse it a lot. Sometimes they're implying that if you can only find a handful of counterexamples, then you're showing how strong the rule is overall. Sometimes they're just spewing nonsense. The original meaning goes like this: an exception of "if it's Thursday, you're allowed to have a brownie" proves/implies a rule of "no brownies"
- stordoff 9y agoI believe the original meaning is more like if there is an exception, there must be a rule (otherwise it wouldn't _be_ an exception/you wouldn't need an exception). It's been watered down a lot, and is often used to suggest that any counterexample makes a rule stronger (which is obviously not always the case -- enough counterexamples just proves the rule is wrong/doesn't exist).