Take a look at his history. The first most obvious thing you will notice is how well the moderation system is working: so many of his postings are deeply downvoted (light gray text), flagged, and dead. But unfortunately he's still succeeding in wasting a whole lot of the moderator's and readers' time.
If you can stand to wade through his light gray walls of rambling incoherent text, you will see there is a consistency to how he writes, digresses, derails, pretends concern, contradicts himself, and regularly trolls and sealions.
As Jacques put it, "It's the online version of passive aggressive belligerence with a veneer of sincerity on top".
And when you try to pin him down on anything he actually believes, he retreats into his intellectual alt-right safe space, where it's impossible to truly know anything, and facts are a matter of opinion, since we live in a post truth society, and people all have their beliefs that they are entitled to, and everybody believes lies except for him, while nobody knows what he truly believes, but if you sincerely ask him, he derails and refuses to answer, and says you can't force him to answer your questions, because you're not the boss of him, and he's the victim.
Does that sound to you like the sincere conversation he claims he wants to have?
That means that somewhere between 1 and 5 people don't like what he says. It is so consistent I actually suspect that someone has it out for him; there doesn't seem to be a particular link between what he is saying and the colour of the text.
> Trolling by claiming to agree with people, and saying some things that happen to be right (while throwing much much more bullshit against the wall to see what sticks), and being insincerely and cloyingly polite, is still trolling, and classic sealioning behavior.
If a sealion happens to be right I'm on the side of the sealion. Facts matter.
And it is a very fair question - given the number of people who are potentially going to asphyxiate this year it is reasonable to ask and have explained what the issues are surrounding ventilators. I don't know the answer to it, for example.
This is why I'm saying that mistermann had a point - questions aren't assertions. It isn't reasonable to interpret a question as an assertion. There isn't any evidence here of people looking down on the (rather lofty!) skills of the medical profession.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKc_1gc1pLg
>"Ahem!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs7r5xfucPs
>"Well, this theory of yours certainly seems to have hit the nail on the head."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49H8HuqEcFo
>"Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time."
It's uncanny.
Particularly my comment which seemed to spark something; it's a pretty basic fact that Ops Research people walk into situations where they aren't necessarily experts and optimise. That is a core part of the job. Every field is stuffed with experts who don't see how anyone could help them in their domain and they are generally wrong about the administrative trivia of organising a workplace. It doesn't even have anything to do with software. Ops Research is from mechanical engineering and factory optimisation.
I know bunch of doctors. I don't believe they work in an environment where the process has been mathematically optimised. They aren't mathematicians. That observation lines up very well with the "leave it to the experts" vibe of the responses here. They won't understand queuing theory for example.