3 ms·

See above. The Vox article made this seem like logic around the hypothesis is more faulty than it probably is, given other replies. I understand my meaning mig

See above. The Vox article made this seem like logic around the hypothesis is more faulty than it probably is, given other replies. I understand my meaning might've confused HN commenters but I genuinely feel that the intent of my words in the initial comment is intuitive, and don't have time or bandwidth to argue about the semantics. I am sorry for the confusion. I obviously can't definitively prove it is faulty, and was merely trying (likely incorrectly so) to summarize the believed veracity of the hypothesis.

keepamovin 3y ago
Vox, always shillin' for illogic. Hahah I thought that's what you were doing, intuitively, and I wasn't attacking you. I know how it can feel that way. It's more like a jumping off point for other commenters to hop onto, a group conversation if you will, but the threaded nature does make it look like a direct challenge/reply to you. You know you can't be sorry for other people's confusion tho, right? That might be some semantics for you! :) haha Have a good day and thanks for sharing this interesting ref!