Technology

59030 readers

3004 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

470

Students’ Leaf Blower Suppressor To Hit Retail (hackaday.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

138 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Every claim where they omit the actual data to support the claim is never fully true. Provide the CFM testing data they must have to even make that claim.

There is no valid reason to omit that data unless to mislead.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Unfortunately I don't agree.

Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope.

Showing the supporting evidence for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

They provided the DB data so your argument for all of those reasons is invalid. They could have easily spent a single sentence providing the CFM data. So no, not a single one of those reasons is valid to omit 6 words.

They made a claim, they didn’t need to mention the power claim, but they did. They should have omitted the claim itself using your logic, instead of the supporting data. The argument is flawed itself.

and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary.

Like knowing making a discharge tube longer or shorter affects its aerodynamics….? So we know the claim is false already…? Their ambiguity is meant to mislead people with zero working knowledge of the subject… anyone with any experience will see its flaw immediately.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah, I'm sure you're right