They could have said "only X were sold". Or X sold, where X is a very low" number".
Instead, they went with an abitrary low number and declared it to be arbitrary.
const ILLUSTRATIVE_LOW_SALES = 30
Seems fine to me.
Instead, they went with an abitrary low number and declared it to be arbitrary.
const ILLUSTRATIVE_LOW_SALES = 30
Seems fine to me.
They could have said "I don't think they sold too many." It would have clearly indicated that they are speculating and expressed the same information.
The problem with the sentence "they know only 30 people in the entire US bought the thing" is that it indicates precise knowledge where there is none. Is it 30, 32, 300 or 3000? who knows? We don't even know that the 30 is the right order of magnitude. We just speculate that it must not have been too many units. How much is "not too many" for Amazon? How colossal a flop this was?
> Seems fine to me.
I'm afraid you are too used to the blurry edges of the "truth". We can push back against that. If someone is speculating they should say that.
I agree. This was not speculation though. It was a hypothetical, signaled by the use of "illustrative".
The OP was making a point, not about that order of magnitude, they were saying that whatever the number is, Amazon knows it. Even if the OP, myself and yourself don't. It is possible they deliberately selected an implausibly low number, in order to further signal this as a hypothetical.
>> I'm afraid you are too used to the blurry edges of the "truth".
Please, less of the personally directed comments like this. I am trying to explain how you have misconstrued the OP's comments. It would be great if you could take us as arguing in good faith.
I did not misconstrued the OP's comment. I understood them completely, and exactly as you explain them. I even understand the meta level. Saying " After all, they know only 30 people in the entire US bought the thing" sounds strong, and authoritative. Even with the disclaimer it sounds stronger than saying "I think not too many people bought the robot."
> they were saying that whatever the number is, Amazon knows it.
It will be very hard to convince me that the original phrasing is fine by rephrasing it. It just further proves it that you can say the same thing without having to make up a number.
> It would be great if you could take us as arguing in good faith.
But that is the core of my argument. What I'm saying is that the form of the argument "strong and concrete statement (followed by sideway, weak disclaimer)" is manipulative. It is not a good faith form of argument. There are other ways to say the same thing and I recommend using those forms.
I also accept that you are saying in good faith that you think this is fine. I truly believe that that is your opinion, and you are communicating it in good faith. There is no problem there.
What I further believe is that you hold that opinion because you have encountered many cases of statements subtly manipulating, or subtly bending the truth and you have become desensitised to them. That is what I believe makes you think it is fine.
Things like "asterisk illustrative image" on food packaging where in truth you will never make those ingredients look like the illustration. Or "asterisk your experience my vary" on a battery life or gas mileage claim where in real life you will never get those numbers. Or a breakfast cereal claiming it improves concentration, but when you read their studies you realise what they tested is that it improves concentration over not eating anything for breakfast at all. None of these are actual lies, but they are all meant to manipulate you into thinking something other than the truth.
Our memetic landscape is saturated with these "half-truths" because they work. I don't like it. I think we would be better of if we would not let these slide. I'm seeing the same pattern in the comment we started talking about, and I called it out for that. I believe I said that in as civilised way as I can.