Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Generalizing through an extreme example is the problem. Risk analysis is about probability, and the probability of a face you recognize being that person is high; the probability of personality conflicts resulting in an office rampage are inconsequentially low. Should we extrapolate your support for illogical interpretations to a likelihood of psychotic behavior? After all, history tells us that they are correlated.

>Generalizing through an extreme example is the problem.

Why? It made my point that he was dangerous, though to an unlikely extreme conclusion, which I admitted was unlikely before I even said it. I would hope everyone reading comments here would be perceptive enough to recognize hyperbole when they read it, especially since I called it out as an exaggeration. Given that no one is likely to take it literally, what is the problem? What is the real danger you're warning against?

Not sure what your goal with these comments is, honestly. Seems like I hit a sore spot, given the temperature of your replies. Apologies if I somehow hit close to home.

So, a hyperbole not to be taken literally. So why post it, boredom?

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact