2 ms·
I'm not affirming the consequent here. I'm saying don't dismiss the gamepad claim outright. As I said, it's not normal for a sub traveling miles under water to
by smittywerben 2y ago
I'm not affirming the consequent here. I'm saying don't dismiss the gamepad claim outright. As I said, it's not normal for a sub traveling miles under water to have electronics sourced from Walmart's toy section.
This thread is about the gamepad. The lawsuit mentions it. It's relevant. Period.
- andrewflnr 2y agoIt's mentioned, but we can still point out that its importance is at best overstated, and that the article headline mentioned it in a deceptive way, and that it most likely had nothing to do with the actual incident (again, plenty of bigger issues). So then the most important question relating to the gamepad remains: why do people keep mentioning it? The specific sub thread we're under started with a pretty good theory IMO. In the meantime, the correct thing is in fact to dismiss the gamepad until any evidence appears relating to its role in the vehicle loss, and not to get to excited for that to happen.