>> 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.

What, expecting future events to resemble past ones?

Isn't that ultimately the basis of all scientific inquiry? ;-)

>>> 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.

I don't know that there are any sites that do /exactly/ what Linked-In 
does. But there are plenty of sites that let you search humans for 
various reasons. (Exhibit A: Monster.)

>> 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).

Depends on whether you want to split hairs between "actually impossible" 
and "so insanely difficult that it is _effectively_ impossible".

Sure, there might be some genius who is so skilful that he can edit the 
tripod and its shadow out of a complex image, somehow faking the details 
hidden behind these structures. But for the average person, no, this is 
not possible. (Unless you take a photograph of something so dull that 
there are no details to fake.)

>> It's perfectly possible for
>> incorrect information to lead you to a conclusion that happens to be
>> true
>
> Only by pure chance.

That's my point.

If you do not have all of the information (the usual case), then whether 
your conclusions are correct or not is largely chance.

> I guess it's been my week to pick fights with people.  Sorry about that

No worries.

I've noticed, on multiple forums, that I seem to piss people off. I 
guess I'm just a bad human being. In the past, people used to just 
ignore me. Now people talk to me, but only to tell me that I'm an idiot. 
I'm not sure that's an improvement...

> You have to admit, though, that you do have a history of making bad
> assumptions and then drawing conclusions that are nonsensical.

Or maybe just a history of not having all the facts... I guess we can't 
all be experts in everything.

>> 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.

Heh, the null hypothesis... ;-)

I'll see if I can figure out what my password is. (If not, I guess I can 
look it up on some Russian forum...)

> You might consider if the reason it sucks is because of how
> its set up, or of how you're using it.

Or because - as I already suggested - it's perhaps aimed at somebody 
other than me.

> 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.

OOC, do you have any factual basis for saying that "millions of people 
do use it with some success", beyond the fact that the site still exists 
and hasn't gone bankrupt yet? Or is /that/ merely an assumption? :-P

(Not that a seriously doubt you. But it sounds like exactly the sort of 
statement that's easy to casually make and almost impossible to 
objectively verify.)

Post a reply to this message