Comment by dataflow
15 hours ago
I believe the phrase is used to mean something like "the fact that you found something that is obviously an exception proves that the rule normally applies."
For example, imagine if your skydiving instructor said "if your parachute doesn't open when you jump out of the airplane, you're gonna die", and you replied with "well actually that's not true, Vesna Vulović survived a fall from high altitude." Yeah, okay. The fact that you had to be smarty-pants about it and dig up a random exception really proves the point they were trying to make.
In this example the “exception” that proves the rule though was not a smarty-pants special circumstance. Using AI for shopping is just one of its many normal usages and if anything proves it is used by normal people doing normal things. It’s not like the rare example that happens once in a hundred years.
Ok but I’m not sure the relevance here? Everyone has unique needs, if they want to get specific enough. The promise of AI here is that anyone can get as absurdly specific as they want, instead of accepting whatever advertising bucket they’d be traditionally sorted into.
Fair enough, I can buy that. I feel like in most cases where I've heard it it wasn't nearly so clear cut, so that logic wasn't obvious and it sounded like nonsense
(Also that story is nuts! https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87)
This exactly.
People on this website are so fucking pedantic and argumentative over the most obvious or inconsequential minutiae it drives me nuts.
Comparing the tone of your message with its parent, do you not see the irony?
Yeah, better to be passive aggressive and faux-intellectual so as not to throw off the usual HN vibe.
5 replies →