Re:It was a mistake to write off the Russians: Neil MacFarla...
by eevilspock on Saturday June 18, 2022 @10:12AM
(#31789988)
How does one distinguish between intelligent contrarian views and a broken clock being right once every 24 hours? How to know if your examples point to an unnecessarily high failure to listen to contrarian views rather than reflecting a survivorship bias mistaking natural randomness for a problem?
I don't disagree with your observations or that we have a hear no evil problem, but I'm a contrarian by nature, so I guess I'm being contrarian about contrarianism.
Re:It was a mistake to write off the Russians: Neil MacFarla...
by soSadm4n on Saturday June 18, 2022 @11:32AM
(#31790746)
No because the content does not “only get published” when the worst happens.
You can find books, popular newspaper articles, etc that predicted the housing crash and some that even predicted the 07-08 timeline.
2022 video about changing world order: https://youtu.be/xguam0TKMw8
1997 article about leveraging worker insecurity to keep people in jobs: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-o...
Accurate predictions are all over because human society is intentional, and physical reality has constraints. I predict you will die of dehydration if you stop drinking fluids.
Many things are certain despite all the uncertainty we feel.
Is there a word, theory, law or something that describe this phenomenon, where the contrarian view ( so to speak ) only gets published when the worst really did happen.
We told you Russian will Invade.
We told you Crypto wasn't sustainable.
Or may be some day, We told you China will invade.
Or in terms of tech, We told you TSMC will overtake Intel. ( That was in 2013/2014, most of HN didn't even know what TSMC was )
And only when shit hits the fan will you get "Here is a professor who have been stating this since x ".