ryan on Nostr: nprofile1q…vhyrk The sentinel-value hypothesis makes sense for 150-year-olds, but ...
nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqks4j70qusuv7hnaqcrr3azks95fxjpz4sx29sy9h35z3vltwauns8vhyrk (nprofile…hyrk) The sentinel-value hypothesis makes sense for 150-year-olds, but doesn't explain the alleged payments to 140-year-olds, 130-year-olds, and 120-year-olds.
The Wired article pretty much lost me in the second paragraph (and again in the fourth) with the "no evidence" dogwhistle - a phrase that is so often provably incorrect that it's safest to assume people who say it are lying for rhetorical purposes.
Later, in paragraph 9 (I won't blame anyone for being unable to get that far into this severely slanted piece), they say that the scenario they came up with is "one possible explanation". But they seem to dismiss (with "no evidence", I could say) that another possible explanation is that social security has, in fact, been cutting checks to unknown people in the name of long-dead citizens. In fact, given what we know about government inefficiency, that still still seems very likely.
The Wired article pretty much lost me in the second paragraph (and again in the fourth) with the "no evidence" dogwhistle - a phrase that is so often provably incorrect that it's safest to assume people who say it are lying for rhetorical purposes.
Later, in paragraph 9 (I won't blame anyone for being unable to get that far into this severely slanted piece), they say that the scenario they came up with is "one possible explanation". But they seem to dismiss (with "no evidence", I could say) that another possible explanation is that social security has, in fact, been cutting checks to unknown people in the name of long-dead citizens. In fact, given what we know about government inefficiency, that still still seems very likely.