Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdcellar
Participant[quote=AN]Only in the context of the scientific method. They are synonymous in colloquial use. But you know that. So, please tell me, are we discussing scientific method here?[/quote]I’d agree in colloquial use, but I wasn’t using them colloquially.
Oddly enough, precision has little bearing on scientific method. If you disagree with me, you can take it up with Galileo or Newton or somebody. Perhaps you meant scientific notation?
Anyway, I thought you would appreciate the distinction, since I have it my head you do something with software, but I guess I was mistaken.
Participant[quote=AN]Only in the context of the scientific method. They are synonymous in colloquial use. But you know that. So, please tell me, are we discussing scientific method here?[/quote]I’d agree in colloquial use, but I wasn’t using them colloquially.
Oddly enough, precision has little bearing on scientific method. If you disagree with me, you can take it up with Galileo or Newton or somebody. Perhaps you meant scientific notation?
Anyway, I thought you would appreciate the distinction, since I have it my head you do something with software, but I guess I was mistaken.
Participant[quote=AN]Only in the context of the scientific method. They are synonymous in colloquial use. But you know that. So, please tell me, are we discussing scientific method here?[/quote]I’d agree in colloquial use, but I wasn’t using them colloquially.
Oddly enough, precision has little bearing on scientific method. If you disagree with me, you can take it up with Galileo or Newton or somebody. Perhaps you meant scientific notation?
Anyway, I thought you would appreciate the distinction, since I have it my head you do something with software, but I guess I was mistaken.
Participant[quote=AN]Only in the context of the scientific method. They are synonymous in colloquial use. But you know that. So, please tell me, are we discussing scientific method here?[/quote]I’d agree in colloquial use, but I wasn’t using them colloquially.
Oddly enough, precision has little bearing on scientific method. If you disagree with me, you can take it up with Galileo or Newton or somebody. Perhaps you meant scientific notation?
Anyway, I thought you would appreciate the distinction, since I have it my head you do something with software, but I guess I was mistaken.
Participant[quote=AN]Only in the context of the scientific method. They are synonymous in colloquial use. But you know that. So, please tell me, are we discussing scientific method here?[/quote]I’d agree in colloquial use, but I wasn’t using them colloquially.
Oddly enough, precision has little bearing on scientific method. If you disagree with me, you can take it up with Galileo or Newton or somebody. Perhaps you meant scientific notation?
Anyway, I thought you would appreciate the distinction, since I have it my head you do something with software, but I guess I was mistaken.
ParticipantAN– I attack your example because it’s ludicrous and a poster child for your typical approach. It’s not off by the cable bill, or even childcare. It’s so atypical that it’s meaningless.
We’ve had this discussion countless times, but you generally tend toward the outer bounds. In this case, someone who consistently tucks away a full third of their gross income (and half of the net). Then, even if it can be granted that some extraordinary miser socks it away, you dial it up and say that a typical long term return is 8% like that’s easy to pull off.
Why do you do that? Because if you were to say someone saving $1,000 a month and 4% for 15 years would only have $250K. Certainly not as compelling, but decidely more realistic.
And if your “point” is to demonstrate the power of compound interest and regular contributions, then say it. You “tempering” your crazy numbers by dialing down the contribution, but then suggesting they can still get 8% annually over an even longer period, just increases the ludicrousity.
ParticipantAN– I attack your example because it’s ludicrous and a poster child for your typical approach. It’s not off by the cable bill, or even childcare. It’s so atypical that it’s meaningless.
We’ve had this discussion countless times, but you generally tend toward the outer bounds. In this case, someone who consistently tucks away a full third of their gross income (and half of the net). Then, even if it can be granted that some extraordinary miser socks it away, you dial it up and say that a typical long term return is 8% like that’s easy to pull off.
Why do you do that? Because if you were to say someone saving $1,000 a month and 4% for 15 years would only have $250K. Certainly not as compelling, but decidely more realistic.
And if your “point” is to demonstrate the power of compound interest and regular contributions, then say it. You “tempering” your crazy numbers by dialing down the contribution, but then suggesting they can still get 8% annually over an even longer period, just increases the ludicrousity.
ParticipantAN– I attack your example because it’s ludicrous and a poster child for your typical approach. It’s not off by the cable bill, or even childcare. It’s so atypical that it’s meaningless.
We’ve had this discussion countless times, but you generally tend toward the outer bounds. In this case, someone who consistently tucks away a full third of their gross income (and half of the net). Then, even if it can be granted that some extraordinary miser socks it away, you dial it up and say that a typical long term return is 8% like that’s easy to pull off.
Why do you do that? Because if you were to say someone saving $1,000 a month and 4% for 15 years would only have $250K. Certainly not as compelling, but decidely more realistic.
And if your “point” is to demonstrate the power of compound interest and regular contributions, then say it. You “tempering” your crazy numbers by dialing down the contribution, but then suggesting they can still get 8% annually over an even longer period, just increases the ludicrousity.
ParticipantAN– I attack your example because it’s ludicrous and a poster child for your typical approach. It’s not off by the cable bill, or even childcare. It’s so atypical that it’s meaningless.
We’ve had this discussion countless times, but you generally tend toward the outer bounds. In this case, someone who consistently tucks away a full third of their gross income (and half of the net). Then, even if it can be granted that some extraordinary miser socks it away, you dial it up and say that a typical long term return is 8% like that’s easy to pull off.
Why do you do that? Because if you were to say someone saving $1,000 a month and 4% for 15 years would only have $250K. Certainly not as compelling, but decidely more realistic.
And if your “point” is to demonstrate the power of compound interest and regular contributions, then say it. You “tempering” your crazy numbers by dialing down the contribution, but then suggesting they can still get 8% annually over an even longer period, just increases the ludicrousity.
ParticipantAN– I attack your example because it’s ludicrous and a poster child for your typical approach. It’s not off by the cable bill, or even childcare. It’s so atypical that it’s meaningless.
We’ve had this discussion countless times, but you generally tend toward the outer bounds. In this case, someone who consistently tucks away a full third of their gross income (and half of the net). Then, even if it can be granted that some extraordinary miser socks it away, you dial it up and say that a typical long term return is 8% like that’s easy to pull off.
Why do you do that? Because if you were to say someone saving $1,000 a month and 4% for 15 years would only have $250K. Certainly not as compelling, but decidely more realistic.
And if your “point” is to demonstrate the power of compound interest and regular contributions, then say it. You “tempering” your crazy numbers by dialing down the contribution, but then suggesting they can still get 8% annually over an even longer period, just increases the ludicrousity.
Participant[quote=AN]Is it me saying I literally know RN couple who saved up $1.5M after 15 years or is it me saying this hypothetical couple can save up $1.5M after 15 years. Read it how you like it. But your literal meter is working at tip top shape, so you know the answer to that one already.[/quote]Literal meter says you don’t know this couple.
Participant[quote=AN]Is it me saying I literally know RN couple who saved up $1.5M after 15 years or is it me saying this hypothetical couple can save up $1.5M after 15 years. Read it how you like it. But your literal meter is working at tip top shape, so you know the answer to that one already.[/quote]Literal meter says you don’t know this couple.
Participant[quote=AN]Is it me saying I literally know RN couple who saved up $1.5M after 15 years or is it me saying this hypothetical couple can save up $1.5M after 15 years. Read it how you like it. But your literal meter is working at tip top shape, so you know the answer to that one already.[/quote]Literal meter says you don’t know this couple.
Participant[quote=AN]Is it me saying I literally know RN couple who saved up $1.5M after 15 years or is it me saying this hypothetical couple can save up $1.5M after 15 years. Read it how you like it. But your literal meter is working at tip top shape, so you know the answer to that one already.[/quote]Literal meter says you don’t know this couple.
-
AuthorPosts
