zlacker

>>dtagam+(OP)
I opened a couple of random ones. The first one was this link:

https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1270402748895412224

Which isn't an example of police brutality.

The second one was this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsTkAOe5UTE

Basically a bunch of thugs attack random drivers. One of the thugs jumps into a random car, the car stops, police come, pull the thug out, he resists, they deal with him. I have zero sympathy for the thug.

If you want to create a list for this cause, at least make it good, make it solid. Don't fill it with random junk to inflate the numbers.

>>buffer+P6
> If you want to create a list for this cause, at least make it good, make it solid. Don't fill it with random junk to inflate the numbers.

What I read is: If you want to create a list for this cause, at least make it perfect and unassailable in every possible way. Because I only need to point skeptically at one thing to dismiss the whole lot.

>>Cathed+VP
I think that's not a fair reading of his comment.

Is it not legitimate to want accurate sources of data? This does not mean slightly inaccurate data is unusable, simply that it is slightly inaccurate and this to some degree impugns its legitimacy (as it should).

>>alexpe+6U
> Is it not legitimate to want accurate sources of data?

Of course. I don't believe you honestly think that I am advocating for inaccurate sources of data.

However, finding and discussing sources of different quality among hundreds is one thing.

Saying that you only looked at two of them, expressing skepticism towards those two, and then stating that the whole thing is "filled" with "random junk to inflate the numbers" is another. That doesn't seem like the interpretation of someone who's honest about their intentions.

If I read two sentences from your thesis, find issue with them, and then claim that you have clearly filled it with random junk to inflate the word count... yould you characterize my position as believing that some parts of your thesis are "slightly inaccurate and this to some degree impugns its legitimacy"?

>>Cathed+gW
I didn't downvote you and I agree with many of your points.

However personally speaking I would (and do) in fact discount a reading where even two sentences are highly suspect; it makes it not worth spending the time to read the rest of it.

As another example, I work primarily in data analytics. If I produce a report where even a single number is wrong, it almost immediately calls into question all of the other reporting I produced (did they use the same unreliable source? what transformations did they apply? was any sanity checking performed?). And, as it should.

Accuracy is incredibly important to making things appear legitimate.