@tiredbun @nixCraft
> this entire thread

> "I spend a lot of my time, productive or hobby, on IT admin and programmer things"

@tiredbun @nixCraft The difference between us is simple: I build the models, so I define them by what they do. You dislike the tech, so you define it by how it feels.

​Admitting you are "technically wrong" while claiming it "doesn't matter" is just a long-winded way of saying you are arguing from emotion. Next time you see a "ghost" in the machine, remember the math you could not be arsed to learn.

​Good luck with the content warnings

@tiredbun @nixCraft so... you were in fact defending the equivocation fallacy and have decided that if you cry hard enough somebody will say that you are correct? To bring it back into the realm of logic, the DOT com bubble was also overinflated. Therefore, according to your rules, the internet is speculative.

@tiredbun @nixCraft so... is this an attempt to justify the fallacy or are you making a new one? I can not tell.

Using one to justify the other is like saying you should not buy a lottery ticket (financial speculation) because you are afraid of ghosts (theoretical speculation).

@nixCraft Equivocation fallacy detected.

> In finance, an asset is "speculative" if its value is based on potential future price movements rather than current cash flow or intrinsic utility.

> In a debate about AI or technology, "speculative" refers to conjecture or reasoning based on hypothetical scenarios that have not happened and have no data to support them yet.

An investment perspective and a Luddite perspective are not the same