← Back to context

Comment by ActorNightly

4 days ago

You are obviously very invested in the fact that someone who is going against the grain of the obviously bad, overly buerocratic government agency MUST be correct (otherwise, in the case you actually gave a fuck about the truth, you would be researching statements from NASA and comparing the reports)

If that is so, put your money where you mouth is and place a bet on polymarket. If you are too scared to do so, then admit it to yourself, and understand that you don't believe this shit anyway.

Because you being a cuck for a contrarian for the sole reason that he is going against the grain is basically the same as Joe Rogan being anti-vaxx because its trendy and cool to think government=bad.

Fill in the blank:

"Maciej says modeling a different entry approach on computers is no substitute for a bona fide re-entry testing a new design, but that's incorrect because _____."

  • Maciej says modeling a different entry approach on computers is no substitute for a bona fide re-entry testing a new design, but that has no correlation to whether NASA engineers did due diligence on reviewing the design and determining if its safe, because he does not know the explicit technical discussions, reviews, or other analysis that went on behind the scenes, or more generally, hasn't analyzed the evidence counter to this claim.

    The most clear cut indicator of intelligence is the ability to present both sides of the coin, and even more so state the conditions which make either side true or false.

I don't think "you're being contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian" pairs particularly well with "if you're so convinced then just bet on in bro" as an argument.

  • I never said he was being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. I said he was being contrarian because its trendy. There is a difference between hating big government because of facts, and hating big government because its trendy.