Shockingly, scientists are aware of that issue, and have developed methods to test models against existing data. They do that by training on one chunk of the available data, and testing against another.

You're making two more mistakes in your analysis.
One, you complain that models that fit old data perfectly are wrong because all they do is fit data. Then you complain that the models don't fit the data perfectly - precisely because they don't just fit data. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Two, you think that we have direct measurements for everything. We don't. We'd like to, but we don't. And even the direct measurements we have need to be transformed into data that can be compared across measurements. All of that is subject to being wrong.

Unfortunately, that inability to admit error is only in your head. The models have been changed countless times over the last decades, and have gotten better in response. Lastly, if you wait a few decades, it'll be too late to head off any meaningful changes. As the joke goes: what if we'd make changes for a better planet when it's not necessary?

You're always selling something even if you're programming. During the interview, you're selling yourself. While working, you're selling your ideas and proposals (even if it is just prioritizing features and putting time and numbers to them).

Sales is part of life in general. And this is coming from someone who has tried to stay away from sales as much as possible.

I think #1 was probably the key driving factor here. People became emotionally invested in their business, and started to identify with it. When the business went south, they had invested so much into it (personally - the financial investment was probably secondary) that they had nothing to fall back onto. At the risk of assuming something of people I never met, I'm going to guess that they justified everything with "if this is gonna make it big, it was worth all the sacrifices I made". And when the business went bust instead of boom, they realized they made sacrifices that were never going to be recouped.

It's worth repeating: you are not your business; you're not your income. If you are, get ready for a short life full of regrets.

That's really the only comment that's necessary here. Fine, use Facebook for advocacy. The ALS challenge clearly demonstrated Facebook is actually good at that. But getting medical advice from Facebook? All I know is that the medical advice I see dispensed on Facebook would make a snake-oil seller from the Wild West blush. As an absolute edge case, I can see support pages for people with specific conditions, but I'll be a two-faced goat from Nepal if people stick to just being supportive, and don't start peddling homeopathic crap.

Science is absolutely not about proofs. It's about gathering facts and comparing them to a prediction, along with the use of math to transform data sets into comparable sets.

To paraphrase: science is about the search for facts. If you want truth, philosophy is down the hall.

For the used car market to be close to pure capitalism, the buyers would have to have near perfect information about the cars in question. Which they most definitely do not. Either because they don't know cars, or because the car dealers actively lie.

On average, less physical strength and higher desirability as a rape target than a single male.

Shall I also explain to you why fire can be bad, and why eating is generally important?

Correction: it says much about the general public about what they know about the technology that powers their life. For most people, it might as well be Magic.

Wow. Every regulatory agency is just there to expand its own powers? They do nothing else?

The reason people point you at Somalia is because your hyperbole leads you directly there. Want to have a civilized discussion about the optImal size of government? Great, start by dropping the ridiculous hyperbole.

A broken clock is also right twice a day. What's your point?

Technically, WW2 and WW1 were the same war, just with a 20 year pause. At least from a European and lessons learned perspective.

Funny. Every time I read them, they say the exact opposite of what people like you pretend they say. Democracy vs Republic is still my favorite and most blatant example.

Why does one deed excuse the other? It's not like anyone complaining about the chinese annexation of the Spratley's was alive to condone the annexation of Hawai'i by the US.

Both were and are bullshit. Extending national boundaries through force is something we were supposed to leave behind after WW2. Apparently, some people think that the lessons from WW2 don't apply to them.

The dailycaller and youtube are shitty sources. I don't waste time on those. The Sharyl Attkisson site is far less damning than you seem to believe: "“Looks like they were inappropriately offering to pay for his wife,” Lerner said. “Perhaps we should refer to Exam?”" Someone asks a question about whether something needs further attention. Do you think the IRS has a magical way of divining everything without any investigation? Furthermore, there was no investigation, as someone else chimed in that the pay was "not prohibited on its face." So what we have here is someone asking around whether something is an issue, someone else provides information that it isn't, and the issue is dropped.

If anything, that article reinforces the idea that this is a total tempest in a teapot: the IRS actually didn't do something, but Republicans are trying to sound like Grassley was investigated by the IRS. There wasn't even an investigation - there was an email discussion about whether something was appropriate or not.

So when you say "she targeted a senator", you're completely misrepresenting the article - she actually didn't target the senator. As a matter of fact, if she thought that paying for Grassley's wife would be inappropriate, it would have been illegal for her NOT to investigate the senator, just because he is a senator with an (R).

Again, you're really not helping your cause here, and are just making it sound like the birth certificate all over again.

And, like everyone is explaining to you, you don't understand the original intent of the executive branch, and the various agencies under its umbrella.