News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by amelius on Saturday October 17, 2026 @03:57PM (#50134509)
That fallacy does not apply here as the authority is legitimate and relevant.
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by kelnos on Saturday October 17, 2026 @05:20PM (#50135254)
That's just your opinion, not fact.
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by aleqs on Saturday October 17, 2026 @06:04PM (#50135596)
Eric Cartman is that you?
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by NamlchakKhandro on Sunday October 18, 2026 @08:49AM (#50140652)
I.e., an appeal to authority
Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by switchbak on Sunday October 18, 2026 @01:18PM (#50143116)
That line of reasoning ... everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it.

Seriously - appeal to authority is a fallacy, unless it's an appeal to an authority that I happen to agree with? It's hard to take you seriously.

Re:DeepSeek: DeepSeek v4.1 Flash 1017 by true_religion on Sunday October 18, 2026 @05:08PM (#50145500)
Instead of repeating that they are legitimate, you would've gotten further by saying Human Rights Watch has been around for X years, has reported competently on Y matters even when suppression was attempted by Z country. Their membership is made of A, B, C and this is why you should trust in their data collection as a source that we can use in casual discussion.

Right now, you're basically asking people to trust Human Rights Watch because you trust them. But if people don't trust you, why would they trust your word on what sources are legitimized?