It's like the birthday problem, but goth-themed.

Because I would like you to be successful in debating this issue, I need to inform you:

That's not a very good response. It will convince literally no one. It won't be convincing to the person you're debating. It won't be convincing to people who are observing the argument. It changes absolutely nothing.

The only effective replies are the ones that force people to think deeply:

• What makes this wrong, specifically?

and then, ask them to explain even more deeply every time they respond. e.g., "killing an innocent person is wrong."

• What makes something innocent? What makes something a person?

If you can get them to at least admit that it's a gray area, you've won.

Why be condescending now?

You already fucked up the point you were making. By all means, insult people's intelligence at the start of the conversation, before you fuck up. Doing it at the same time as fucking up looks bad... but insults after you fuck up looks even worse.

There's nothing that you can explain with that fact. Inflation is a measure of dollar value in relation to goods... including goods that you don't actually need. Simply knowing that wages outpaced inflation tells you nothing about the economic conditions of individual people.

Here's a more detailed breakdown, which DOES emphasize the things that everyone needs:

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/comparing-the-costs-of-generations.html

Windows XP predates Chrome by 7 years.

Similar: having characteristics in common.

Looking similar does mean that two things are similar. You could have tried to make your point in a variety of ways, but you chose the way that can be countered by simply understanding English.

0/10

"Why techer onion are bad"

Do you know the Secretary Problem?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

Your father's been using computers for some number of years. It's possible he's been using computers for longer than he will continue using computers. From his perspective, the current edition of Windows is better than anything that's come before it, so it's the rational choice to stick with it until the end.

To get around this, you would basically need to set up a second machine with Zorin so that he can get some context before making a decision. That way, in the very realistic scenario where he decides it's not for him, he hasn't lost anything.

If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation.

No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population.

Given the global response to the situation, I would bet they probably realize that you don't think they're significant.

Then again, there's a chance they're just focusing on food and water and shelter and medicine and not-getting-blown-up... rather than worrying about the opinions of people who couldn't even pretend to be significant.

Oh no.

I have a vision of a dark future, in which we replace the jpeg compression deep-fryer with an AI-Telestrations deep-fryer.

The person who commented is a fucking idiot who clearly didn't read the article

Let's assume that everything you just said about the article is true, without any flaws. Why would that make her response idiotic?

If we mentioned the impact that cutting defense spending would have on Raytheon, Lockheed, and Boeing... "Oh no, not my military industrial complex..."

If we mentioned the impact that a new public housing program would have on the housing market... "Oh no, not the sector of the financial market profiting from the endlessly increasing price of a basic human need..."

I understand that these things would have major financial impacts. I also understand the value of NYT writing an article about the nuances of where it would have upsides and downsides. But also, the original commenter isn't criticizing that analysis. She's criticizing the business model of private insurance. Your response just leads me to ask,

Wtf is wrong with you guys where you just assume every statement is some kind of personal dig?