Re:When was the last time 98% of scientists got something im...
by kayamon on Wednesday March 09, 2022 @11:14PM
(#30623149)
You haven't actually engaged with any of the points I made. This is not science.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:When was the last time 98% of scientists got something im...
by anon9384929 on Thursday March 10, 2022 @12:04AM
(#30623407)
“The true cost of energy of an asset”
I work in the energy industry and I think people haven’t engaged your points because they’re completely incoherent without you significantly expanding upon them.
Respectfully, the way you’ve phrased your points makes it clear you aren’t an expert in energy markets, which makes someone like me unwilling to engage in a debate without you making your case much more clearly up front. (If this seems arrogant, consider debating somebody who has a rudimentary understanding of Python making declarations about the next revolution in distributed systems, or something like that…)
Re:When was the last time 98% of scientists got something im...
by kayamon on Thursday March 10, 2022 @01:09AM
(#30623696)
I like the idea that you wouldn't talk to someone you consider stupider than you.
Re:When was the last time 98% of scientists got something im...
by anon9384929 on Thursday March 10, 2022 @01:48PM
(#30630783)
You can’t call out the other guy for not acknowledging your points and then not acknowledge mine. Your points aren’t coherent, so lay them out better if you want people to engage. They other person isn’t malicious, they just don’t see you as commenting in good faith if we all know you aren’t an expert but are commenting (rather hostilely) as if you are one.