stickyribs

I felt the same way. The realistic complexity of the show feels dumbed down and is an immediate turn off and even cheap. Let’s say compared to the movie The Martian, the way they show and not tell is a great example for keeping realism engaged.

Precisely. It’s intriguing to observe that the prevailing emotional response appears to be based on presumptions, despite the limited information available regarding the actual events.

Laughs into my millions of dollars of investment earnings.

In all seriousness, I do get a wiff of traditionalists complaining about an emerging change that isn’t a straightforward understanding. Take Tesla short sellers for example: they just can’t contain their frustration for all the billions they lost over the past years and love to tell everyone about it and the haters come out in droves with theory of X and Y but no real theory is proven without s proper set of experiments.

We’ll be playing the crypto experiment for decades.

180k could mean total compensation which is pretty typical for a new grad in the SV market. Usually the breakdown is base, stock, and bonus.

So for example: 120k base 45k stock/yr and 15k bonus ~ 180k a year.

A related idea to your thought while reading your comment is that it appears that two groups of people arguing competing ideas don’t agree on how to derive the truth; one being the scientific approach (bending over backwards to prove yourself wrong) and the other seeking through confirmation bias and both claiming victory.

I corrected my op to clear up ambiguity. What I meant was our understanding of “the truth” evolves and crystallizes over time. Not Truth itself (the truth I was referring to in my OP was our own truth about the truth). So, as we gather more data, revise our hypothesis, throw away wrong ideas and formulate new ones, we get a clearer picture.

In your response to your last paragraph:

It’s a slippery slope and some fortune-telling to assume that Facebook and Twitter will not let you post based off potential incorrect facts. If anything, a caution or warning label regarding facts should offer the reader extra information. As MikeTheGreat has aptly highlighted, science is a self correcting paradigm that seeks to prove itself wrong. Old facts, tried and tested overtime, may seldom update but new and not well tested facts may evolve in due time.

Also, the claim that fact checkers are wrong more than they are right is a non-sequiter. Because the prevailing truth at the time of fact checking is the most accurate based off the current body of evidence. And as stated in my point above, our understanding of the truth crystallizes over time.