Post #2083437
2026-04-23 01:22 UTC
@arfisk I completely agree that the lie should be ignored until the truth has had a chance. The problem, usually, is knowing what to ignore.
In this case though, it was abundantly clear from the outset. It was not plausible, not even for a moment. Why? Because the info came from a lying company with a lying CEO whose flagship product lies all the time.
Replies (1)
-
@arfisk@aus.social 2026-04-23 01:40
@kauer Rather like the flurry over cold fusion: probably baseless, but just in case, we might put some backing to a Pascalian Wager.