I disagree. It had a premise and an implied conclusion—it was clearly an argument.
If you meant that it’s not a good argument, you did not provide a very good argument for why that would be the case. I could just as well argue that you should not eat bananas, since bananas sometimes contain poison and explosives.
How often does top-level planning get things horribly wrong, and how do the alternatives fare?
Hm, I wrote that under an assumption that everyone already knew the fact stated in the comment, since it was repeated a number of times before, so the comment could only be an appeal to availability of whatever weight the bare fact of there being a post like that has.
Incidentally, formalism has a way of losing track of the original intent, which is at odds with the intent of signaling ability to handle rigor.
I disagree. It had a premise and an implied conclusion—it was clearly an argument.
If you meant that it’s not a good argument, you did not provide a very good argument for why that would be the case. I could just as well argue that you should not eat bananas, since bananas sometimes contain poison and explosives.
How often does top-level planning get things horribly wrong, and how do the alternatives fare?
Hm, I wrote that under an assumption that everyone already knew the fact stated in the comment, since it was repeated a number of times before, so the comment could only be an appeal to availability of whatever weight the bare fact of there being a post like that has.
Incidentally, formalism has a way of losing track of the original intent, which is at odds with the intent of signaling ability to handle rigor.