It's relevant to that previous post. You know-- the one you gave up reading.
UPDATE: A friend of mine who actually understands the math had this to say:
The first law seems arbitrary and prejudicial in its nature. It models an "observation" that is questionable at best. The rest seems to flow from that. Personally, I think it's crap. The formulas the guy throws in make some sense in context if you accept his givens. But you decide for yourself if you think the context is proper.
My overall impression is that this is pure crap. But that's just my take.
I think it's bogus math that sounds legit arguing for an agenda.
_
No comments:
Post a Comment
READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING!
All comments are subject to approval before they are published, so they will not appear immediately. Comments should be civil, relevant, and substantive. Anonymous comments are not allowed and will be unceremoniously deleted. For more on my comments policy, please see this entry on my other blog.
AND A NEW RULE (per this post): comments critical of Trump's lying must include criticism of Biden's or Kamala's or some prominent leftie's lying on a one-for-one basis! Failure to be balanced means your comment will not be published.