4 ms·
The level of discourse was brought down to below zero by the article. I'm actually raising it, if anything. This is an appallingly bad "forecast" and I'm slight
by swombat 13y ago
The level of discourse was brought down to below zero by the article. I'm actually raising it, if anything. This is an appallingly bad "forecast" and I'm slightly ashamed on behalf of Princeton for allowing their name to be associated with it.
Also, if you look at my comment history, I don't habitually use "such coarse language". I only use it in appropriate circumstances - like in response to this article. The coarse language has little to do with the karma.
Edit: worth noting that the title of the article on Guardian is "Facebook will lose 80% of its users by 2017", not may. That has been editorialised by the submitter. The article is even worse than you may think if all you read was the title.
- smrtinsert 13y agoWell I think ur bullshit. What a great way to communicate.
- swombat 13y agoI wasn't communicating with the authors of the article, just with the commenters here. I was not even insulting the authors (only the "forecast"). You, on the other hand, are throwing insults at people (me in particular) - and doing so in a largely inarticulate manner. Another pretty poor analogy, I suppose. I can see why you liked the article. </sheldon-joke-mode>
- jrs99 13y agoit's only a bad forecast if it doesn't happen. if it does happen, then it's a freaking awesome INTUITIVE forecast. Okay, so there's no science behind it? It doesn't matter. There's no science behind a lot of things, yet they work. When you recognize insane patterns and connections, much like an Artist as opposed to a Scientist, things can work. All that needs to matter is that the intuition has to be right. The science can come after.