Surely the burden of proof lies on the more unbelievable side?
Show me how a company setting never before seen piles of money on fire is profitable. Until someone can i'll happily keep claiming they're unprofitable.
Show me how a company setting never before seen piles of money on fire is profitable. Until someone can i'll happily keep claiming they're unprofitable.
Obviously we cannot assume every business is profitable unless proven unprofitable. That's why reporting and audits exist.
Note that they totally could be! I'm not asserting one or the other. But unprofitable is the default, absent evidence.
Indeed, the other poster seems right: "The burden of evidence is on the side of the person making the claim" is simplistic and reductionist. "The burden of proof lies on the more unbelievable side" is more appropriate.
Taking an example: If I said the earth was not flat, and someone else told me to prove it, that proof would be unnecessary, because the earth being flat is more unbelievable than the alternative.
Oh, so you are just trolling. Got it.
of course normal people edit their post within the first couple minutes of making it.
maybe wait longer before replying? try 2 hours if "ninja edits" are a problem for you.
at that point, the post parenting your reply will be un-editable, so you need not worry.
but anyhow, back on topic: no evidence of profitability implies unprofitable by default.