Re: Yet Another New systemd Feature

On Sat, 11 May 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 11/05/2024 10:31, D wrote:

  On Fri, 10 May 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
 

On Fri, 10 May 2024 17:16:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 

On 09/05/2024 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 Try telling that to climate change [scientists]...

 They have evidence. You don’t.
 

 No they don't. Seriously, they don't. I think you are trapped by the eco-fascist propaganda Lawrence.

>
And that is the problem. There is a conjecture - one of many possible - that purports to explain the 'facts'.
But the problem of induction, means that there are an infinite number of conjectures that could explain the data, even if the data was clean, plentiful  and unambiguous, which it isn't.
And the current conjecture fits the data so badly that its  excused by the fallacious 'precautionary principle' to justify doing stuff that cannot work 'in case' they are in fact right.
>
Another conjecture, that they dont understand how climate works at all, and something else is in play, is simply disregarded, because it doesn't lead to sales of greenCrap™ and research money for academics.
>
Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and 'climate scientists' don't vote for 'natural causes'.
>
Nor do the mass of ArtStudents who have leapt on the media bandwagon or the companies that sell greenCrap or the politicians trying to make careers out of it.
>
Its a trillion dollar boondoggle.
>
All based on just one conjecture, that has in fact been demonstrated to be false.
>
A most convenient lie, however.

Wow, way more articulate than I usually see. Do you have a blog or something where you expand on your brief summary above?
Also, honest question, why do you think the precautionary principle is fallacious? I have vague memories from my philosophy studies that someone looked into it, but vague is an overstatement, so can for the life of me not remember.