- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Summary
Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot in a premeditated attack outside the New York Hilton Midtown before speaking at an investor conference.
The gunman, still at large, fired multiple times, leaving shell casings marked with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.”
Authorities suggest Thompson was targeted but remain unclear on the motive. His wife confirmed prior threats against him.
Analysts speculate a possible vendetta tied to his company. The case raises questions about executive security, as Thompson lacked personal protection despite known risks.
Obviously there are many plausible scenarios, but one of them scales significantly differently than the others.
If there are many plausible scenarios, even if one is the most plausible, it’s silly to assume that’s the one.
It’s only silly if one misunderstands an assumption to be established fact.
If I hear hoofbeats, I will assume horses, not zebras.
If I see Zebras, I’ll say my assumption was wrong. No shame in it. I’m wrong all the fucking time, being right isn’t part of my identity.
But until then, if someone says “what do figure those hoofbeats are?” I’m not going to say “50/50 horses or zebras”
Assumptions are claimed to be established facts. That’s what an assumption is. You’re making a claim of fact without having the evidence.
This means it’s being regarded as true for the purposes of a context. “Hypothetical” is another term which would be useful here. But you’re being probably needlessly pedantic about this. I think everyone can agree that there are millions of people his company has harmed who thus have motive to do this, and at the same time other motives are quite possible. Maybe he broke up with the guy who shot him. Maybe he was part of an international zebra smuggling ring. Maybe it was just completely random, but fate just happened to land on someone who really deserved it. Maybe the total lack of accountability in our justice system finally drove someone over the edge.
Don’t feed the troll.
No, that’s not what it means. You are redefining it. Hypothetical would be fine though.
But… thats the literal copy-pasted dictionary definition. I’m so confused here.
Established facts do come with proof. That’s how they are established to be fact. You’ll notice a suspicious avoidance of the word “fact” in the definition you posted.
Sorry, are you under the bizarre impression that ‘true’ and ‘fact’ are different things?
No.
But if you preface them with qualifiers that means something, no? Are those words meaningless embellishment or are they intended to provide additional meaning, and if so, what?