A serious question for Sam Stone on Factual Errors

Okay, new topic.

Sam takes the sun rises in the East. John takes the sun rises in the West.

I still think John wins, but now I’m really curious to see the argument that is made.

Lol, no, I have genuine ethical issues about such an approach about historical topics. Want me to string bullshit theories regarding, say, the Avengers movies? No problem, I’ll compare Thor to Jane Austen or something. But not a MAGA topic, which is what this is.

Document, laptop, election, man, camera, TV.

This is directionaly-ableist and should not be allowed on this Board. Is it my fault I don’t know where I’m facing? #Triggered

What about as the Earth revolves around the Sun… every 6 months doesn’t what was once East become West, and vice versa?


You’d think so, but remember, Hunter Biden’s laptop was left in Delaware, which is in the EAST. You don’t even think that there was a laptop.

If I might make a suggestion, debate for/against Daylight Saving Time.

When I was in about 5th grade, I remember a friend who was pissed off about the switch to/from Daylight Saving Time. So, naturally, I took the opposite point of view. I only had a vague idea of what DST was, exactly, but I was very good at situational argument (making my points off of my friends statements rather than any facts of my own). We were still arguing when class started and when the teacher found out what we were arguing about, he decided we should have a formal debate the next day, with the class voting on the winning argument.

So I went home and read the encyclopedia (it was an early version of the wiki, for you youngsters) on DST. I realized that, in fact there were good reasons both for and against DST. So the next day, I went into class and made an emotional plea for DST (I think based on the importance of farmers and the threat of famine), while my friend laid out the facts. I won the debate.

What is the lesson? It is that…

There’s a legitimate argument here. Because of geomagnetic reversal, there have been times when the sun would have risen in the west, if you consider the whole compass to get flipped over when magnetic north is coming from the other pole.

Not to get into a debate in a pit thread, but the cardinal directions are defined by how the planet rotates, not by the magnetic field.

All a magnetic reversal would mean is that the north end of a magnet is now pointing towards the north pole, rather than the south.

Err, as Sam would say, “Geomagnetic reversal doesn’t change the rotation of the Earth. Show me an example of a time that the planet reversed its rotation because of the magnetic field, or admit that you are wrong.” (except with a few spelling and grammar errors, and a few insults as to your character and intelligence.)

If you can’t trust these guys, who can you trust?

I think of that too whenever anyone mentions what direction the sun comes up in.

You know, I was giving thought to replying in the original thread, but I think this is a perfect illustration of the issues addressed in this thread. Decisions, decisions.

Anyway, this has been bugging me since it happened, so here goes.

Sam posted the following (you do not need to click, this is just documentary. Keep reading):

In that post, is this graphic, which Sam calls a Supply Chain chart.


Sam talked about how every line created information and value, that this was a miracle of modern freedom, that central planners couldn’t create such a thing, etc.

But the chart is a fake. Rather, it’s a dumbed-down version of a McKinsey report Risk, Resiliance, and Rebalancing in Global Value Chains which contains the same graphic - but without the colors and the fake labels:


(For example, there is no “maritime” classification in the McKinsey chart.)

Now, the issue isn’t that Sam grabbed the wrong cite when a better one was available - we’ve all done that. The internet is a big place, after all.

It was in the following exchange, when I, well, parodied Sam’s post with a picture taken from The Devil’s Derivatives showing a CDO-cubed derivative. Using 95% of the same wording, I talked about how every line created information and value, that this was a miracle of modern freedom, that central planners couldn’t create such a thing, etc.

(Again, you don’t have to read):

The graphic:


The above graphic shows the supply chain of actual derivatives, with the derivative in the center being the one under review. Every node you see within the circle is another CDO-cubed deal, some (the thick one above the middle node) thicker than others (that small CDO at about 7pm of the central node, halfway to the edge). In addition, all the dots at the edge of the circle represent additional CDO’s and their related investments. And each of the dots are invested in hundreds, thousands of mortgage bonds representing tens of thousands of American homes, these mortgage bonds not shown due to simplicity.

So what did Sam do? Did he recognize the parody? Did he argue against his own words (which would have been delicious)? No…

Oh, wait. That’s exactly what he did (you can read this one if you wish):

Which left me so gobsmacked I had to let him know what’s what:

Sam hits back with the of course I knew that! defense which worked so well after the 400 well-intentioned words cited above in post 145.

But here’s the thing. I actually brought a supply chain graph. Sam brought a fake one. Sam then denied the reality of my cited (it’s right there in the bottom-left corner of the graphic) supply chain… and why?

… because it’s a “circle of things” which “a central planner would make”. There’s a literal description in my graphic explaining that it is a core product of one of the Titans of American Capitlalism and Sam here is denying its reality because the artist decided to use straight lines and actual CDO’s rather than McKinsey’s more general, curvy, representation of what’s happening with Dell.

And to Sam, that made my citation fake news. Because it lacked curved lines.

To deny my own citation by presenting fake evidence while simultaneously arguing against his own words…

Sometimes, team, I literally cannot believe that this site is free, as the entertainment value can be damn near infinite.

It’s even more bizarre since the positioning of the nodes is completely arbitrary. It’s meaningless. Either someone ran an algorithm on it for some arbitrary criteria (like to minimize average edge length) or they just picked something that looked nice. You could rearrange the nodes to spell out SUPPLY-SIDE JESUS and it would convey exactly the same information.

Well, in my chart, the position of the nodes is directed by which CDO’s bought into that specific node (also a CDO), with the lines creating that node (CDO) indicating a different CDO investment.

… if that makes sense. I guess what I’m saying is that a node is an actual CDO, so their positioning may not be as random as thought.

It makes sense, but I would fold that into “arbitrary criteria”. My point is just that you can’t distinguish “natural” networks from “artificial” ones by just eyeballing it. The author of the CDO chart wanted the outer nodes to be an oval shape. Someone could have done the same for the Dell chart, but instead they were left in a more random arrangement. It’s the how the nodes are connected by edges that’s important, not the positioning. Mathematical graphs aren’t concerned with positions at all, only connectivity.

Ok, yes, that I agree with.

And to be clear, I was agreeing with your original point. Sam thought the CDO chart was what “a human planner [would] make” because it was arranged in a circle and connected with straight lines. It would have been an unjustified claim even if it were true.

There are, in some cases, ways to determine artificial from natural networks, but not by just eyeballing the node placement.

ETA: Curvy vs. straight lines is also nonsense. They could have written out The Wealth of Nations in flowery cursive and it would not matter.

Eh, maybe fewer people would have read it and thought they now knew everything about how economies worked.

One of the most revealing @Sam_Stone episodes on this board occurred in the somewhat recent thread: Does POTUS Biden believe that he’s the smartest in the room?.

Sam made a bunch of posts in that thread in service of the argument that Joe Biden is a bad bad guy because he exaggerates and embellishes. Leaving aside the fact that Biden can not be meaningfully compared to Trump in this area, Sam’s line of attack involves a fuck ton of exaggeration and embellishment.

Just nakedly hypocritical and somehow simultaneously comically clueless that he was engaging in the very behavior that he was decrying.

Just a dog shit human being really. No other way to look at it.

So he’s a bad guy.


To be fair, I don’t know that he was the worst in that thread.