Elon Musk's Solution for Dodger Stadium Traffic Is Full of Holes

Re:Elon Musk's Solution for Dodger Stadium Traffic Is Full o... by squirrelicus on Thursday August 30, 2018 @02:35PM (#17879428)

Please don't assert that someone's beliefs or advocacy about a political movement make them wrong about facts. Classic ad hominem fallacy. Listening to people making sound arguments about X even though you disagree with them about Y is healthy, and the lack of this health is a major intellectual problem of this century in my humble opinion. Listen more, judge less. Post and watch more things from people with whom you disagree. And don't shut people down just because their views on unrelated topics are not palatable to you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Elon Musk's Solution for Dodger Stadium Traffic Is Full o... by viraptor on Thursday August 30, 2018 @04:48PM (#17880614)

There's a threshold to things like that. Would you honestly watch Alex Jones's video evaluating technical facts raised if it was posted? At some point you can discount people / publications as generally not caring about facts. It's fine to deny them the ad revenue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Elon Musk's Solution for Dodger Stadium Traffic Is Full o... by squirrelicus on Thursday August 30, 2018 @05:46PM (#17881087)

Absolutely. When talking about matters of science and physics, Alex Jones has a very poor track record to say the least. He's demonstrated a strong history of inaccuracy and blatantly ignoring facts to fabricate sensational stories. The opposite of what we should appreciate about some of Thunderf00t's contributions, in fact.

As much as I disagree with Thunderf00t's political opinions and how much I hate his style, he has a pretty damn good track record on dismantling hypetrains of physical impracticality.

More clearly, if Alex Jones had a good track record of accuracy or predictions on anything, then his contributions would be valid and shouldn't be discredited because of his opinion on unrelated things.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Elon Musk's Solution for Dodger Stadium Traffic Is Full o... by gok on Thursday August 30, 2018 @02:56PM (#17879645)

You're right, the fact that he's an asshole just means he doesn't deserve link and ad revenue. The fact that he's unqualified to make many of his engineering claims is why you shouldn't use his videos in arguments.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Elon Musk's Solution for Dodger Stadium Traffic Is Full o... by squirrelicus on Thursday August 30, 2018 @03:17PM (#17879842)

I've observed a dearth of videos going into technical detail about why the "busted" things will succeed. I'd like to see them.

Thunderf00t does have a great track record in predicting the failure of many pipe dream techs including solar roadways and fontus and waterseer and that thorium car. Who exactly is qualified to do so? Basically anybody with a cursory understanding of physical forces and skepticism, which he has.

I'm not sure why you set the bar so high for reasonable skepticism informed by very, very basic physics

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Elon Musk's Solution for Dodger Stadium Traffic Is Full o... by icc97 on Thursday August 30, 2018 @04:33PM (#17880488)

> Thunderf00t does have a great track record in predicting the failure of many pipe dream techs including solar roadways and fontus and waterseer and that thorium car.

Got any references for these?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Elon Musk's Solution for Dodger Stadium Traffic Is Full o... by squirrelicus on Thursday August 30, 2018 @05:50PM (#17881111)

What are you looking for? Scientific journals?

Thunderf00t takes things, let's say Scio, and shows how, despite marketing videos and press attention and funding, they're complete nonsense. Then he shows what the state of the art is, or what the basic physics say. Then he does follow-up videos when they fail. The Waterseer series is absolute gold.

What references do you need? A chemistry or physics book and what the failed projects actually say when and as they fail.

[ Parent | on HN ]