On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:32:25 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> I've seen websites which are dynamic and ever-changing. Linked-In
>>> appears to change at roughly the speed of plate tectonics. I suppose
>>> in three entire /years/ they might have made visible changes though.
>>
>> So you make the assumption that because /some/ websites are static and
>> never change, that a site you haven't visited in 3 years must not have
>> changed one bit.  m-/
> 
> No, I make the assumption that because Linked-In never changed at all
> during the time I was using it, it won't have changed during the time I
> haven't been using it. Or at least, won't have changed much.

"It didn't change while I was using it, so it won't have changed since I 
stopped using it" - that's a bad assumption to make.

>> Again, on what factual basis do you make this claim?  Restating your
>> point doesn't actually answer the question.
> 
> I've used dozens of sites that all work the same way? That isn't a
> "factual basis" somehow?

I don't know that there are "dozens" of sites like LinkedIn.

> Sure, it doesn't prove that Linked-In works this way. But it makes it a
> reasonable extrapolation.

Have those dozens of sites failed to change in any way in the past 3 
years?  Somehow I doubt that - stagnation on the 'net isn't good for 
longevity.

>> But you're doing a typical "Andy" thing - you're making broad
>> assumptions and assertions with no evidence to back them up.
>>
>> You really need to stop doing that.  Doing so won't get you far in
>> life.
> 
> And you seem to be doing the typical Jim thing of asserting that if the
> conclusion is incorrect, then all of the evidence is invalid.

Not really.  What you take for evidence is often provably false 
information.  Like the 'impossibility' or even 'difficulty' of removing a 
tripod from a 360 degree photograph using off-the-shelf software (and 
even free software, at that).

> But that
> isn't how logical deduction actually works. It's perfectly possible for
> incorrect information to lead you to a conclusion that happens to be
> true

Only by pure chance.

> , or for quite correct information to lead you to a false
> conclusion. 

Sure, that I'd agree with.  Invalid indirection or falsely assuming that 
correlation implies causation could do that.  (Of course, those both are 
logic faults in and of themselves)

> The fact that a conclusion is wrong does not _make_ the
> evidence wrong, and it certainly doesn't make the evidence cease to
> _exist_.

Confirmation bias is what it seems you're applying here. ;)

> I'm not sure why you're so keen to pick a fight anyway. I did not say
> "Linked-In has not changed in 3 years", I said "I would not have
> _expected_ Linked-In to have changed in 3 years, based on a history of
> not changing in the past". I did not say "Linked-In lists results by
> date", I said "Linked-In _probably_ lists results by date, given that
> similar sites do it that way". And so forth.

I guess it's been my week to pick fights with people.  Sorry about that 
(it happened on a mailing list I participate in as well - with a known 
troll, even.)

You have to admit, though, that you do have a history of making bad 
assumptions and then drawing conclusions that are nonsensical.  (Which, 
given it has happened recently, is probably a good indicator of near 
future behaviours - moreso than a web site that didn't change noticibly 
between the time you started using it and stopped using it - and then 
doing nothing with it for three years is. ;) )

> Fundamentally, what we have is this: I used Linked-In for a while. It
> didn't seem to be helping me. So I stopped using it.
> 
> I was just curious as to why other people apparently do use it. If the
> answer is "they changed it so it doesn't suck now", then that's fine.

I didn't think it sucked then.  YMMV.  You should take another look at 
it, but if past behaviours are any indicator, you'll probably still think 
it sucks.  You might consider if the reason it sucks is because of how 
its set up, or of how you're using it.  There are millions of people who 
do use it with some success, so it seems logical to infer from that that 
perhaps there are better ways to use it than the way you're trying to.

Jim

Post a reply to this message