4 ms·

I didn't equate anything to anything. I simply pointed out that no one has perfect information. What you read about China might be a mix of many true and false

I didn't equate anything to anything. I simply pointed out that no one has perfect information. What you read about China might be a mix of many true and false (maybe exaggerated) information. I'm not even comparing different population. If I wasn't clear then I apologise.

wolverine876 5y ago
> I simply pointed out that no one has perfect information. What you read about China might be a mix of many true and false (maybe exaggerated) information. Unless you are drawing an equivalency between the CCP censored and created information on one hand, and the New York Times and Jonathan Spence on the other, I don't see what the point is. 'No information is perfect'? A similar claim is, 'no composer writes flawless music', but that tells us nothing about anything; it fails even to distinguish between Bach and me.
- dumb1224 5y ago
  Sorry again, I meant 'no one knows all the correct information'. I don't understand why you are so fond of comparison. Fine, I'll attempt one. What you read on New York Times about China could be high recall but low precision; and what I read from chinese sources (not necessarily press) may be high precision but low recall (not sure if I got it right...laugh).
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    We're kinda going in circles. 'no one knows all the correct information' isn't more meaningful than any other statement about perfection. Some people have far better information than others. Some people believe the earth is flat, others know astrophysics, neither has perfect information but that statement tells us nothing about the information they do have.
    - dumb1224 5y ago
      I do realise that I'm not contributing much more details or concrete examples so I should probably stop (besides I do have a small child who tends wake up early). Thanks for the discussion and all points taken.

4 ms·

I didn't equate anything to anything. I simply pointed out that no one has perfect information. What you read about China might be a mix of many true and false

by dumb1224 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago
> I simply pointed out that no one has perfect information. What you read about China might be a mix of many true and false (maybe exaggerated) information. Unless you are drawing an equivalency between the CCP censored and created information on one hand, and the New York Times and Jonathan Spence on the other, I don't see what the point is. 'No information is perfect'? A similar claim is, 'no composer writes flawless music', but that tells us nothing about anything; it fails even to distinguish between Bach and me.
- dumb1224 5y ago
  Sorry again, I meant 'no one knows all the correct information'. I don't understand why you are so fond of comparison. Fine, I'll attempt one. What you read on New York Times about China could be high recall but low precision; and what I read from chinese sources (not necessarily press) may be high precision but low recall (not sure if I got it right...laugh).
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    We're kinda going in circles. 'no one knows all the correct information' isn't more meaningful than any other statement about perfection. Some people have far better information than others. Some people believe the earth is flat, others know astrophysics, neither has perfect information but that statement tells us nothing about the information they do have.
    - dumb1224 5y ago
      I do realise that I'm not contributing much more details or concrete examples so I should probably stop (besides I do have a small child who tends wake up early). Thanks for the discussion and all points taken.