I don't get the point of this article; is it a response to something else? It seems kind of obvious that there is a lot of strong evidence for many things, but

I don't get the point of this article; is it a response to something else? It seems kind of obvious that there is a lot of strong evidence for many things, but why does that matter? Also, I hate to quibble about details, but someone saying their name is "Mark Xu" isn't really strong evidence that their driver's license says "Mark Xu". There are a lot of people who go by names other than their official name. In my case, I tell everyone my name is Ken, but it's actually Kenneth. In the case of Xu, many people from China use a Western name like Mark that isn't their real name. Edit: I just realized that the odds that someone's name matches their drivers license is at most 6:1, since only 84% of the driving-age US population has a drivers license at all. The paragraph about the Efficient Market Hypothesis is just wrong. Contrary to the article, it is easy to make money on the stock market: historically it has gone up an average of 10% a year. It is also easy to beat the market average: you have roughly a 50-50 chance. How difficult is it to get into the top 1% of traders? Uh, that would be exactly 1 in 100. And I really don't see any connection between this paragraph and the topic of the post. The post seems to have something to do with calibration training, but that link takes me to a signup page for some mystery site, which seems suspicious. I'm trying to interpret this post generously and understand its message, but it seems kind of random.