Thunderf00t has lost last of his marbles and remaining bits of credibility

[Psi]

Yep, BS is a wider term, it includes lying but also a wider range of negative, intentionally annoying or counterproductive behavior or situation.
It's also used a lot when someone is saying something untrue but they believe it to be true. So not lying but simply wrong. Since lying, for the most part, is more about intentional deception.

I do get how BS could be misinterpreted though, it can have a strong lying component.

I don't think I've seen him lie much, maybe a little with the Elon stuff, the BS is usually just him arguing about things no one was actually saying or meaning.  "Intentional misinterpretation to create avenues to attack from" is probably the best way to put it.
The.. "What else can I find to attack in some way, so it pads this good 8min rant into 30min."  Which isn't bad in itself, padding is fine, he just takes it so far it becomes BS.

[TimFox]

The standard reference:

H G Frankfurt On Bullshit  Princeton Univ Press (2005)
The 20th Anniversery Edition is due out on August 5.

Review excerpt:
"With his characteristic combination of philosophical acuity, psychological insight, and wry humor, Frankfurt argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant."

[AVGresponding]

So, no actual examples of something he said that isn't true?   

[rob77]

So, no actual examples of something he said that isn't true?   

look at his starlink "debunking" video for example furthermore he's comparing spaceX to theranos in many videos suggesting spaceX is the same vaporware as theranos was... he went really downhill.

[Psi]

So, no actual examples of something he said that isn't true?   

It's less about him saying stuff that isn't true, although that does happen from time to time.
It's more him twisting views people had or said into things that never existed so he can argue them on the side of truth. His augments will usually be valid for the stance he takes, but if no one had the opposite/incorrect view then there was no need for him to even say it.

It would be like me starting an argument saying that the blueish-green text you use in your posts is being done because you hate people with visual disabilities and want to make text harder for them to read.   
The argument that blue/green text might be harder to read for someone with a visual impairment could very well be a true statement but it's a stupid argument for me to start with you because no one was ever suggesting that to be true and there's zero evidence anyone has had issues with it. You probably just like the color.  (I'm not visually impaired and have no issues with the color, it was just a good example of inventing an augment using truth to frame who is right vs wrong.  I mean you no offence. )

I'm not going to spend ages rewatching his videos to make a list of things, but I have given myself a mental note to keep an eye out and make a list the next time i watch one of his videos. I will PM you examples if I remember, or post here

comparing spaceX to theranos in many videos suggesting spaceX is the same vaporware as theranos

yeah, that's a good one.

[PlainName]

It's more him twisting views people had or said into things that never existed so he can argue them on the side of truth.

aka a strawman argument.

A search for thunderf00t and strawman can be enlightening.

[wraper]

So, no actual examples of something he said that isn't true?   

look at his starlink "debunking" video for example furthermore he's comparing spaceX to theranos in many videos suggesting spaceX is the same vaporware as theranos was... he went really downhill.

Yeah, spewing to no end that predominant space launch company sells vaporware and do not know what they're doing is beyond ridiculous. It's like saying that Microsoft sells vaporware, do not believe your eyes of when you see Windows OS on your PC.

[tszaboo]

So, no actual examples of something he said that isn't true?   

It's less about him saying stuff that isn't true, although that does happen from time to time.
It's more him twisting views people had or said into things that never existed so he can argue them on the side of truth. His augments will usually be valid for the stance he takes, but if no one had the opposite/incorrect view then there was no need for him to even say it.

It would be like me starting an argument saying that the blueish-green text you use in your posts is being done because you hate people with visual disabilities and want to make text harder for them to read.   
The argument that blue/green text might be harder to read for someone with a visual impairment could very well be a true statement but it's a stupid argument for me to start with you because no one was ever suggesting that to be true and there's zero evidence anyone has had issues with it. You probably just like the color.  (I'm not visually impaired and have no issues with the color, it was just a good example of inventing an augment using truth to frame who is right vs wrong.  I mean you no offence. )

I'm not going to spend ages rewatching his videos to make a list of things, but I have given myself a mental note to keep an eye out and make a list the next time i watch one of his videos. I will PM you examples if I remember, or post here

comparing spaceX to theranos in many videos suggesting spaceX is the same vaporware as theranos

yeah, that's a good one.

He is asking for specific examples, because that he can rip apart like a strawman.
If you don't do that, then how is he going to win this argument?

[paulca]

So, no actual examples of something he said that isn't true?   

look at his starlink "debunking" video for example furthermore he's comparing spaceX to theranos in many videos suggesting spaceX is the same vaporware as theranos was... he went really downhill.

Yeah, spewing to no end that predominant space launch company sells vaporware and do not know what they're doing is beyond ridiculous. It's like saying that Microsoft sells vaporware, do not believe your eyes of when you see Windows OS on your PC.

The reason why in both cases it is insidious, is because there is a root of truth in both.  Only a tiny little one.  However Thunderfoot is using an academic technique of starting from cited sources of thruth and then "conflating" across contexts other "facts" as being relevant.  Both have sources, but together they form something different.  The author (thunderfoot) is exploiting your mental processes.  Your brain works like this.  While you are forming the new connection between these contexts, he is still talking, still spinning "HIS" view of this.  Perfectly tainting your new forming "idea" of combining the same ideas.

Best strategy.  Identify when authors do this.  Ideally stop reading/listening immediately and do something else.  If you must continue, first pause the video when the "Spark" happens.  When they plant the seed, PAUSE.  Now process the new connection yourself in isolation of their opinion.  Go and check up on some of the facts.  They may be "facts" with evidence, but what context do they sit in and is the use of the fact in the authors current context even valid?  Now unpause.

If you do this with Thunderfoot and others, along with spot checking some of the "conflacted implications" you will find yourself going "yes, yes, but.. hang on a minute."

[Psi]

If you do this with Thunderfoot and others, along with spot checking some of the "conflacted implications" you will find yourself going "yes, yes, but.. hang on a minute."

Yep, with thunderfoot there's often an extra level of WTF after the 'Hang on a minute'.

Some amount of it pretty typical when two people have a difference of opinions on a subject. He just takes it way to far, and then a bit further.

[AVGresponding]

So, no actual examples of something he said that isn't true?   

It's less about him saying stuff that isn't true, although that does happen from time to time.
It's more him twisting views people had or said into things that never existed so he can argue them on the side of truth. His augments will usually be valid for the stance he takes, but if no one had the opposite/incorrect view then there was no need for him to even say it.

It would be like me starting an argument saying that the blueish-green text you use in your posts is being done because you hate people with visual disabilities and want to make text harder for them to read.   
The argument that blue/green text might be harder to read for someone with a visual impairment could very well be a true statement but it's a stupid argument for me to start with you because no one was ever suggesting that to be true and there's zero evidence anyone has had issues with it. You probably just like the color.  (I'm not visually impaired and have no issues with the color, it was just a good example of inventing an augment using truth to frame who is right vs wrong.  I mean you no offence. )

I'm not going to spend ages rewatching his videos to make a list of things, but I have given myself a mental note to keep an eye out and make a list the next time i watch one of his videos. I will PM you examples if I remember, or post here

comparing spaceX to theranos in many videos suggesting spaceX is the same vaporware as theranos

yeah, that's a good one.

He is asking for specific examples, because that he can rip apart like a strawman.
If you don't do that, then how is he going to win this argument?

No, I'm asking for specific examples, so that we can examine and test the facts.

[nctnico]

So, no actual examples of something he said that isn't true?   

look at his starlink "debunking" video for example furthermore he's comparing spaceX to theranos in many videos suggesting spaceX is the same vaporware as theranos was... he went really downhill.

Or take the hyperloop as another example. Basically the whole argument TF makes is 'it has not been built before so it can never be built' after you peel away the many layers of hyperbole. It is good we can't rewind the clock to the 1960's in that respect. TF's videos about how the Apollo program is a massive failure would be an endless stream of drivel. 

[EEVblog]

Or take the hyperloop as another example. Basically the whole argument TF makes is 'it has not been built before so it can never be built' after you peel away the many layers of hyperbole. It is good we can't rewind the clock to the 1960's in that respect. TF's videos about how the Apollo program is a massive failure would be an endless stream of drivel. 

To compare Hyperloop to Starlink or Apollo is crazy.
Nobody with any engineering common sense thinks Hyperloop will be in any way a practical solution.

Starlink was obviously a practical solution from the get-go, especially when you have the launch capability. And IIRC Thunderf00t didn't debunk that it could work or wouldn't be a solution, his argument is it won't be financially viable, which is a fair enough argument to make, it ultimately may not be and may go out of business. Hard to get real numbers on it. It wouldn't be the first space based consumer communications company failure.

Apollo wasn't a mass transit system, it was a bold and risky program that cost lives, and succeeded with exceptional large scale large cost national engineering effort for what was ultimately a small scale problem of getting two humans to the lunar surface and back.

[rob77]

So, no actual examples of something he said that isn't true?   

look at his starlink "debunking" video for example furthermore he's comparing spaceX to theranos in many videos suggesting spaceX is the same vaporware as theranos was... he went really downhill.

Or take the hyperloop as another example. Basically the whole argument TF makes is 'it has not been built before so it can never be built' after you peel away the many layers of hyperbole. It is good we can't rewind the clock to the 1960's in that respect. TF's videos about how the Apollo program is a massive failure would be an endless stream of drivel. 

actually i agree with most of his points regarding hyperloop... whole hyperloop is a crap idea.   
stopped watching his videos after his "debunk" of starlink where he is clearly failed to understand the concept of aggregation and clearly has not the slightest idea how an ISP works.. yet got the audacity to state that the "cost of the internet" is why starlink will fail    and of course he didn't forgot to compare it to theranos as usual

i'm not a Musk fan , far from it.. but i do respect what he achieved with paypal, tesla motors, spacex ...  others not so much, as those are over-hyped "investor magnets" (neuralink, boring copany...) or even straight nonsense (hyperloop).

[EEVblog]

actually i agree with most of his points regarding hyperloop... whole hyperloop is a crap idea.   

IIRC nctnico is our (only?) resident Hyperloop supporter. LOL

[wraper]

actually i agree with most of his points regarding hyperloop... whole hyperloop is a crap idea.   

IIRC nctnico is our (only?) resident Hyperloop supporter. LOL

I would not call myself a supporter but I don't see a reason other than achieving economic feasibility why it could not be built. Holding <1 bar pressure within the pod and outside the tube in not such a difficult task. In fact, normal subway and undersea tunnels hold an order of magnitude more external force than that.

[Psi]

The problem with hyperloop was always the practicality of it. It's totally possible to build one and have it function to take people from one point to another.
The issue is with trying to make it reliable, maintainable and safe, and to do all that while keeping it cost effective to build and run, given what passengers would pay. Once you factor that in you realizes it's never going to work as a product. For people to want to use it the distance covered has to be very long so that the speed gives you a big advantage over other options. As soon as you have a hyperloop that long the maintenance and reliability become a serious problem.

[EEVblog]

The problem with hyperloop was always the practicality of it. It's totally possible to build one and have it function to take people from one point to another.
The issue is with trying to make it reliable, maintainable and safe, and to do all that while keeping it cost effective to build and run, given what passengers would pay. Once you factor that in you realizes it's never going to work as a product. For people to want to use it the distance covered has to be very long so that the speed gives you a big advantage over other options. As soon as you have a hyperloop that long the maintenance and reliability become a serious problem.

Not just a serious problem, but a complete impractical show stopper, obvious to anyone who cares to analyse it.

I've been on the Shanghai Maglev at 430kmh, very cool. But it literally goes nowhere was wasn't scalable, complete white elephant and can't compete with regular high speed rail, so it's not a thing any more.
Hyperloop won't even be thing.

[wilfred]

Or take the hyperloop as another example. Basically the whole argument TF makes is 'it has not been built before so it can never be built' after you peel away the many layers of hyperbole. It is good we can't rewind the clock to the 1960's in that respect. TF's videos about how the Apollo program is a massive failure would be an endless stream of drivel. 

To compare Hyperloop to Starlink or Apollo is crazy.
Nobody with any engineering common sense thinks Hyperloop will be in any way a practical solution.

Starlink was obviously a practical solution from the get-go, especially when you have the launch capability. And IIRC Thunderf00t didn't debunk that it could work or wouldn't be a solution, his argument is it won't be financially viable, which is a fair enough argument to make, it ultimately may not be and may go out of business. Hard to get real numbers on it. It wouldn't be the first space based consumer communications company failure.

Apollo wasn't a mass transit system, it was a bold and risky program that cost lives, and succeeded with exceptional large scale large cost national engineering effort for what was ultimately a small scale problem of getting two humans to the lunar surface and back.

If Apollo was a "bold and risky" etc etc then presumably one couldn't argue it was practical or economically feasible project to put man on the moon. I would argue it was just a publicity stunt to exert western, and American in particular, democratic politics as the supreme option over communism. The Vietnam war was a fought for roughly the same purpose. America cared little for south east Asia then and cares little for it now. In the end the cold war fizzled out for largely economic reasons. And since we haven't put a man on the moon since when it must surely be a lesser technical barrier I am going to claim Apollo has more in common with yet another company failure.

However, how can you claim Starlink was an obviously practical solution from the get-go if in the same paragraph you concede TF's argument is it was financially nonviable? If that is a fair argument in the absence of "hard to get real numbers" why then does that not apply to Hyperlink? I think you are as Joh Bjelke Petersen(*) once put "Trying to walk along a barbed wire fence with a foot in both paddocks".

I disagree that comparing Hyperlink, Starlink and Apollo is crazy. Especially if one constantly has the sand shifting under your feet as you switch between technical feasibility and economic viability. Furthermore common sense seems ill suited to the development of breakthrough new ideas. Although I am well aware the idea of a hyperloop goes back more than a hundred years.

I haven't followed this thread closely enough to know just how strong nctnico supports hyperlink. But I am inclined to think he just opposes the sometimes arbitrary and populist nature of the criticism of it. A point highlighted by the LOL when calling him the (only?) resident HL supporter.






(*) Joh Bjelke Petersen was Queensland state premier in the 1970's and 1980's. Effectively our version of Donald Trump, with the corruption, but without the narcissism. He was a peanut farmer.

[EEVblog]

If Apollo was a "bold and risky" etc etc then presumably one couldn't argue it was practical or economically feasible project to put man on the moon.

It was pretty much the best way to put men on the moon at the time time.

I would argue it was just a publicity stunt to exert western, and American in particular, democratic politics as the supreme option over communism.

Irrelevant.

However, how can you claim Starlink was an obviously practical solution from the get-go if in the same paragraph you concede TF's argument is it was financially nonviable? If that is a fair argument in the absence of "hard to get real numbers" why then does that not apply to Hyperlink?".

Practical solution it absolutely has turned out to be, and could have been readily seen at the time as being viable because space communications satellites are well proven technology, it was just a matter of how many you could put up there before the money ran out. Practically everyone who uses it loves it, says it's game changing, and it grew quickly.

It obviously doesn't apply to Hyperloop because there it will never reach the point of having any sort of public adoption in the first place for all the obvious reasons. All it took for Starlink to get successful was a few launches, some early adopters who absolutely needed it in the middle of the sticks, and bingo they had a viable working system, the rest was just scale.
Starlink has reached mass adoption to widespread public acclaim. It's another question if it continues to be financially viable a decade from now, but no one can deny that it's radically successful, and it was fairly low risk technically that it would have worked and been viable, at least from a usability and need point of view. After all, other satellite internet systems already exited. For example, Australian NBN has the Sky Muster satellites, which Starlink has made all but redundant.

[Adrian_Taylor333]

Starlink has reached mass adoption to widespread public acclaim.

OR at least that's Elon's story.
Would it have succeeded without his extensive ties throughout the MIC ? 🙄
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/t6760g/is_elon_new_verner_von_braun_ferdinand_porsche/

[EEVblog]

Starlink has reached mass adoption to widespread public acclaim.

OR at least that's Elon's story.

Err, no, that's what I hear from everyone who uses it. Adoption charts shows the popularity is just growing nonstop, more countries coming online all the time etc. I don't know anyone who doubts it been successful 
Approaching 5M users I think, and the factory is the biggest PCB assembly factory in the US.
I did use it once last year at a place that otherwise wouldn't have had internet, and it was solid, did a live streaming show using it.

[PlainName]

as those are over-hyped "investor magnets" (neuralink, boring copany...)

Neuralink seems pretty decent to me. Works and being rolled out. No doubt blindingly expensive but medical stuff is, so that doesn't make it uneconomical.

[EEVblog]

as those are over-hyped "investor magnets" (neuralink, boring copany...)

Neuralink seems pretty decent to me. Works and being rolled out. No doubt blindingly expensive but medical stuff is, so that doesn't make it uneconomical.

Agreed, Neuralink looks to be working at the basic level, and is important research in the medical field. Could eventually be big.

[Psi]

A product or service can be a success from a user perspective while losing money from a business perspective.
That sort of thing happens all the time while the company does rapid expansion or needs more development to cut costs.
I don't think one can call it a failure until the product/service ends, or the company folds. Especially when people are currently using the product or service successfully. (Starlink)

It's clear that cost to space will continue to fall be it from Starship or some other reusable rocket.
So even if Starlink is unprofitable currently something like Starlink (if not Starlink) will be successful. So the technology/idea seems solid.
SpaceX has put themselves into the position to make a shit ton of money if they can pull off the long term plan, which is a valid strategy (Cheap Starlink launches on fully reusable Starships).

SpaceX could, if they wanted to, start launching Starlink sats on Starship in a non-reusable mode with the tech they have already figured out and that would cut the cost of Starlink. However it's a far better use of time to keep pushing Starship to make it fully reusable than to get distracted trying to make Starlink profitable now at the cost of delaying future higher profits.