So what? Just because someone has cheated in the past does not in any way prove that they've cheated in this particular case. It only proves they've cheated in the past. Is it suspicious? Sure. But any accusations of cheating are still pure speculation.
> Officials literally found weights inside the fish. Both of those are in this story.
And I specifically mentioned this in my comment.
Getting caught for cheating has an impact on credibility. Credibility is a big deal and a hard problem. The boy who cried wolf is not a story of no wolves. Are you surprised that cheating impacts credibility?
In a court of law we might have standards like preponderance of evidence or reasonable doubt. In everyday human relations everyone is free to develop their own theories of credibility and to act upon their freedoms accordingly. You are free to judge whether Microsoft is trustworthy even without proof that they will betray your trust in the future, which nobody really knows.
It's your call if you wish ignore to medical credibility when evaluating your doctor's advice. Perhaps you'll engage in a discussion about how their medical credibility is not adequate evidence, but at that point, isn't it time to get a doctor you find credible?
where’s your evidence to the contrary?
i’m sure you’ll find fault with it as yet another arm chair expert
what evidence do you have for your position?
> He’s either the greatest chess player alive
Ridiculous, nothing about his play suggests he's the greatest chess player alive.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33085649
but i’m sure you have quite literally nothing to refute this with but the autistic cries from the ether
cc @dang
My position is that the statistical analysis is flawed: just think critically about it for a bit and you can understand why. It has been beaten to death already.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33085649
what analysis have you published publicly to be scrutinized?
i’d love to see any substantive comment from you though