Do you think Costco really is associated with 2.2 million deaths?

No, but how do I know that the authors used the same methodology? The most they say about it is "we developed our own methodology by guessing what they did, and we changed stuff around until the results from our methodology matched their results", which is very unconvincing to me.

▲

IMTDb 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The fact that they had to guess what the original author did is already an issue in itself. What we see here is that: 1. the original author did not sufficiently document their methodology and 2. when a best effort at reproducing the results is applied and we look deeper, we then discover that the results are wacky.

▲

kbenson 3 hours ago | parent [-]

When someone comes along and proclaims 2+2=5, just because someone is right that they're incorrect doesn't mean their own assertion that 2+2=3 is any more correct, or that their reasoning for believing the original person was wrong has any validity.

Being accidentally correct is only barely better than being wrong, and for many uses (such as when the reasoning is extrapolated and used elsewhere) is no better at all.

	▲	cwillu 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They're not claiming 2+2=3, they're showing that the same methodology that proclaimed 2+2=5 also proclaims (as best as they can determine give the flawed documentation of the methodology) that 3+3=7, 1+1=3 and 17+17=137

▲

shoobiedoo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Does choking to death on their hotdogs count? It's on my todo list