Right, I am saying there is no evidence they are profitable, so we fall back to the default, that they are unprofitable.

Indeed, the other poster seems right: "The burden of evidence is on the side of the person making the claim" is simplistic and reductionist. "The burden of proof lies on the more unbelievable side" is more appropriate.

Taking an example: If I said the earth was not flat, and someone else told me to prove it, that proof would be unnecessary, because the earth being flat is more unbelievable than the alternative.

>Taking an example: If I said 1+1=2 and someone else told me to prove it, that proof would be unnecessary, because 1+1=2 is more believable than any alternative sum.

Oh, so you are just trolling. Got it.

Yep, everyone you don't agree with is trolling.

I see you ninja edited your post to a more palatable example, good job!

is it really a "ninja edit" when you impulse replied literally 2 minutes after I posted?

of course normal people edit their post within the first couple minutes of making it.

maybe wait longer before replying? try 2 hours if "ninja edits" are a problem for you.

at that point, the post parenting your reply will be un-editable, so you need not worry.

but anyhow, back on topic: no evidence of profitability = unprofitable by default.