4 ms·

It is really funny that a conspiracy theory posted by an anonymous person with no backing evidence whatsoever is sitting at the top of this thread.

endymi0n 8y ago
It's funny how I seriously can't tell whether you mean the comment or the article on top of this thread.
- calcifer 8y ago
  Fine, I'll bite. The person mentioned in the article is not anonymous, his name, credentials and motivation are all publicly stated. None of which applies to the GP.
  - endymi0n 8y ago
    Granted. s/seriously/almost/g would have been more appropriate
coldtea 8y ago
It's as if people can still think for themselves and make arguments from the available information (even if they prove to be wrong), instead of expecting the final story to be handed down to them... The reference to the "95+ page document of complex legal argumentation"? That's evidence in support of the claim in the comment. Parent didn't make up that it's a complex lengthy legal document themselves. Sure, the theory that he was a strawman might or might not pan out. But that this is no simple "engineer vigilante" is evident. Perhaps it's a very organized vigilante with big resources (and the money mentioned also point to that). But such a move is not above suspicion of some other corporate entity being involved. Should anybody thinking so just keep it to themselves? Or are people that might agree at fault if they vote such a comment up?
- simias 8y ago
  The original poster doesn't provide any substantive evidence of what they're claiming (since then they've posted a link to the document without further discussion). They have an account with very little activity so we don't really know who they are or how knowledgeable (and how biased) they are on these issues. I think some skepticism is very much warranted and I don't understand why their comment sits at the top of the thread. They're not making "arguments from the available information", they're just making a statement without providing evidence. >But that this is no simple "engineer vigilante" is evident It is not to me. It's plausible that he might not be but I haven't seen a conclusive demonstration either and I'd sooner trust Ars over "some anonymous poster on HN who says it's not true". I tried reading the PDF provided and I found it very obtuse and verbose, but then again so are patent applications as far as I'm concerned. I'm genuinely incapable of judging the level of skill and dedication required to create something like that. If you are I'd very much like to hear about it instead of throwing vague accusations. Is is that implausible that a skilled engineer used to dealing with patents could come up with something like that on their own or with only minor outside help?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
golergka 8y ago
Many users of this site are used to evaluate comments on merit alone, without ever bothering to check who the comment author is. I personally don't think it's that bad of a situation.
rando444 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone If you're going to argue against an assertion, you should include an argument.
- mtarnovan 8y ago
  The argument was implicit: he called it a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy [...] without credible evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
  - rando444 8y ago
    That's not an argument. You should look at the example in the wikipedia article I posted. The poster formed an opinion based on observations and gave his reasons for doing so. If you disagree with his observations, the best way to do so is to provide your reasons for disagreeing with his analysis.
    - ectospheno 8y ago
      What analysis? OP basically said "these words are big" and from that determined it was written by others.
robdachshund 8y ago
It's really funny that you assume an article is objectively true

endymi0n 8y ago

It's funny how I seriously can't tell whether you mean the comment or the article on top of this thread.

calcifer 8y ago
Fine, I'll bite. The person mentioned in the article is not anonymous, his name, credentials and motivation are all publicly stated. None of which applies to the GP.
- endymi0n 8y ago
  Granted. s/seriously/almost/g would have been more appropriate

coldtea 8y ago

It's as if people can still think for themselves and make arguments from the available information (even if they prove to be wrong), instead of expecting the final story to be handed down to them... The reference to the "95+ page document of complex legal argumentation"? That's evidence in support of the claim in the comment. Parent didn't make up that it's a complex lengthy legal document themselves. Sure, the theory that he was a strawman might or might not pan out. But that this is no simple "engineer vigilante" is evident. Perhaps it's a very organized vigilante with big resources (and the money mentioned also point to that). But such a move is not above suspicion of some other corporate entity being involved. Should anybody thinking so just keep it to themselves? Or are people that might agree at fault if they vote such a comment up?

simias 8y ago
The original poster doesn't provide any substantive evidence of what they're claiming (since then they've posted a link to the document without further discussion). They have an account with very little activity so we don't really know who they are or how knowledgeable (and how biased) they are on these issues. I think some skepticism is very much warranted and I don't understand why their comment sits at the top of the thread. They're not making "arguments from the available information", they're just making a statement without providing evidence. >But that this is no simple "engineer vigilante" is evident It is not to me. It's plausible that he might not be but I haven't seen a conclusive demonstration either and I'd sooner trust Ars over "some anonymous poster on HN who says it's not true". I tried reading the PDF provided and I found it very obtuse and verbose, but then again so are patent applications as far as I'm concerned. I'm genuinely incapable of judging the level of skill and dedication required to create something like that. If you are I'd very much like to hear about it instead of throwing vague accusations. Is is that implausible that a skilled engineer used to dealing with patents could come up with something like that on their own or with only minor outside help?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

golergka 8y ago

Many users of this site are used to evaluate comments on merit alone, without ever bothering to check who the comment author is. I personally don't think it's that bad of a situation.

rando444 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone If you're going to argue against an assertion, you should include an argument.

mtarnovan 8y ago
The argument was implicit: he called it a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy [...] without credible evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
- rando444 8y ago
  That's not an argument. You should look at the example in the wikipedia article I posted. The poster formed an opinion based on observations and gave his reasons for doing so. If you disagree with his observations, the best way to do so is to provide your reasons for disagreeing with his analysis.
  - ectospheno 8y ago
    What analysis? OP basically said "these words are big" and from that determined it was written by others.

robdachshund 8y ago

It's really funny that you assume an article is objectively true