3 ms·
You didn't invalidate either of those two quotes with anything of substance, other than assuming they are wrong. That's bad faith reasoning. You fabricated the
by fleddr 5y ago
You didn't invalidate either of those two quotes with anything of substance, other than assuming they are wrong. That's bad faith reasoning.
You fabricated the term "super sustainable", which is claimed nowhere. The claim instead refers to the relatively high percentage of renewables compared to several other industries, whom often score in the 10-20% renewables range only. As to whether 56% is accurate, I don't know. Yet if you don't know, you can't be confident in it being wrong. You simply don't know.
The second quote isn't even a claim, it's what factually has happened. China shut down almost all Bitcoin mining overnight yet it did nothing to Bitcoin. The network self heals by means of a difficulty adjustment and miners moving elsewhere. A super power shut down the entire thing and months later the hash rate is right back where it was. That's extreme resiliency.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago> As to whether 56% is accurate, I don't know. Yet if you don't know, you can't be confident in it being wrong. You simply don't know. And this, in a nutshell, is my entire point: the person making a claim is responsible for establishing its validity. A person questioning its validity isn't. If I claimed that 75% of all HN posters were on the autism spectrum, it would be my responsibility to support my claim, not your responsibility to prove that it's wrong. Claims made by an interest group that align to the interests of the interest group deserve extra scrutiny, especially when those claims are based on "data" that is self-reported by members of the group with no independent substantiation. It is therefore entirely reasonable to not accept these claims at face value, which gets us back to my purpose in responding to the other poster: the 56% figure is not a credible one.