Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Biomega]

What? Face value is biased now? How can you keep claiming you don't have a negative view when a neutral view is biased.

But you're not espousing a neutral view. You're claiming that the "face value" of "175m users streamed a show" isn't subject to distorting effects like very low views per person etc. to any significant degree. That's already a particular interpretation (and the implicit exclusion of other intepretations) that you somehow purport to be "neutral". That's the bias.

And by the way: "face value" means nothing. It doesn't somehow give more legitimacy to something, or make data more accurate, or exclude problematic interpretations. It's a meaningless red herring from the get-go.

It doesn't matter what the underlying data is for the statement to be impressive or not.

"Impressive" is a value judgement, which in turn means it's intrinsically contingent on the underlying data. It's impressive IF AND ONLY IF the data is interpreted in a certain way; as proven by my earlier example that if you interpret it differently, it ceases to be impressive. Your claim of it simply being impressive as a default obscures that contingency. That's why it's a bias - it holds true only for certain interpretations, which are NOT derived via objectively justifiable conclusions from the given data.

Your mistake is simply the constant return to it being "impressive" as though that was self-evident fact, when the whole point I'm making is that it can't be evaluated as such. Not with the given data.

70% growth is still a good thing, right? What % of growth would be impressive?

That depends entirely on context. "Growth" is another very vague metric. It's used in shorthand, or summaries, or simplified statements. It's MEANT to sound impressive given the kind of document it appeared in, but the absolute number means very little without crucial details.

What's especially ludicrous in your example is that those 70% are in reference TO THE DATA ALREADY IN QUESTION, which means we have no idea how to interpret this.

What if of those 70% extra "stream hits" 60% tried watching for 5 minutes, then never came back? They'd show up the same way in this data, and it'd be treated as "growth", but what that would actually MEAN is that the company massively FAILED in conversion rate because 86% of the people who gave it a shot turned it off immediately. Of course I don't think that's the case, but it's at least a POSSIBLE interpretation of the same data that you cannot exclude, and that has relevance even at much lower degrees of realization. So, again - I don't KNOW what this means, because I can't tell from the data provided how good of a thing this is or isn't.

You keep bring up "we need more data" as a way to discredit a simple statement.

That's sort of the point? I'm saying the statement is too simple to allow for a value judgement. Your response seems to be "lol look at this guy saying this simple data is simple!" which only reinforces my impression that you are simply completely out of your depth here. You just don't know how data evaluation works. Many people don't. Statistical (and stochastic) illiteracy (or innumeracy) is one of the biggest shortcomings of most contemporary education systems. It's WHY companies push simple numbers so much - it's easy to create any number of impressions with them, without ever actually telling lies.

[rhorle]

But you're not espousing a neutral view. You're claiming that the "face value" of "175m users streamed a show" isn't subject to distorting effects like very low views per person etc. to any significant degree.

No. I am saying regardless of anything of that it is an impressive statement. 70% growth and 85%, or whatever, of total Prime subscribers using the service. That is impressive at face value. All of the other data, to make that statement false/negative, is irrelelvant. There is no way to ever report an easy to share statement if you have to always account for every little deviation. You are saying we can't take the statement at face value because Amazon didn't provide the impossible by breaking down every data point related to those 175 million users. Lmao.

Remember this started with you making the statement that most customers think of Prime Video as a secondary benefit. Yet it isn't impressive that a lot of those customers have actually engaged with the service?

- - - Updated - - -

Done. Guess it's the best I can hope for, huh?

If you can't actually control yourself and do what you say you want then yes. The forum forcing you to ignore me is the best you can hope for. I'm not sure why that is a question that needs an answer.

[Triceron]

Sorry, you're not 'getting' Biomega's point at all. That is either purposefully because you just want to argue, or because you don't understand.

He just wants to argue.

He's done this multiple times, practically every time, in any discussion that involves speculation or unknown factors. He will try to disprove people's arguments on the blatant fallacy of absence of evidence, and it's incredibly ignorant.

At this point it's impossible for him to not be willing to change his ways. He's doing it on purpose because he literally has nothing else to do but argue and try to prove people to be wrong, because shitposting and trolling is literally the only think he's invested in at any conversational level. It's like some OCD bullshit.

[Biomega]

No. I am saying regardless of anything of that it is an impressive statement.

And that's just plain unreasonable, as I demonstrated with concrete examples that would immediately make a judgement of "impressive" false if they were true (and we have no way of knowing that they're not). You simply don't have the information required to objectively justify this kind of value judgement - you CHOOSE to have a positive interpretation that ASSUMES no significant distorting effects which would disqualify a judgement of "impressive".

70% growth and 85%, or whatever, of total Prime subscribers using the service. That is impressive at face value.

Just out of curiosity: did you not understand my explanation in the previous post as to why that data isn't good enough, or did you simply not read it?

There is no way to ever report an easy to share statement if you have to always account for every little deviation.

Nobody is saying they can't report simplified data without enough context. It's done all the time.

All I'm saying is that a reasonable person has not enough objective justification to judge that data "impressive" in its value. Most people aren't reasonable, and most people don't care about objective justification. That's, uh, WHY they publish data like that.

You are saying we can't take the statement at face value because Amazon didn't provide the impossible by breaking down every data point related to those 175 million users. Lmao.

I'm saying that in order for me to accept this is impressive, I'd need more data. "Lmao" indeed. You're free to take less reliable data, and interpret it any way you like. I'm not here saying people HAVE to use sound epistemology. I'm saying I try to, wherever I can, and I point out when people don't. That doesn't make me the authority of how people should react to data. Evidently a large number of people are entirely fine with just going with facile, biased interpretations for all sorts of reasons. I think that's a problem; other people disagree.

Yet it isn't impressive that a lot of those customers have actually engaged with the service?

I'll do you the courtesy of repeating my previous explanation on this:

We don't KNOW that this is impressive, because the data we have COULD LOOK THE EXACT SAME for a case where people engaged with the service briefly, decided they hated it, and never came back. Which isn't "impressive", but a glaring red five-alarm-fire warning signal. BUT COULD LOOK THE SAME IN THIS KIND OF DATA. Of course I don't think that kind of extreme scenario is the case here (simply by virtue of extreme scenarios generally having low probabilities) but I can't exclude it, and, more importantly, I can't exclude the countless similar scenarios that differ only in degree.

[rhorle]

All I'm saying is that a reasonable person has not enough objective justification to judge that data "impressive" in its value. Most people aren't reasonable, and most people don't care about objective justification. That's, uh, WHY they publish data like that.

A reasonable person would not see 70% growth as impressive? What level of growth is the cut off point for impressive then? Or for reasonable people? This is the problem. You keep trying to spin it as if only your way is reasonable. As if it can't be thought of as impressive unless it has impossible levels of data presented with it.

You don't think 85% of customers engaging with a secondary service as impressive? When you also think that most people don't think the service has much benefit? It is telling that instead of answering the questions you instead are repeating yourself with an explanation that isn't relevant to the question answered. We have enough data to label it as impressive. We don't have enough data to know how many of those 175 users were active the entire year. That is irrelevant to the 70% growth year over year statistic though. You even present an extreme scenario that you don't think applies as a way to discredit Amazon's statement. Yet you have no bias? Lmao.

[Biomega]

A reasonable person would not see 70% growth as impressive? What level of growth is the cut off point for impressive then?

You are, again, missing the point entirely. And I have to, again, ask whether you didn't understand my explanation about how that data could suffer from gross distortion, or whether you simply didn't read it.

You consistently portray this as though there was only one way to interpret this: that it's "simple" growth of users that all behave the same, and that's an unequivocally positive thing and could not possibly be interpreted any other way. I've shown you, directly, how it could be. You seem to either struggle with comprehension, or are simply ignoring it.

You keep trying to spin it as if only your way is reasonable.

If you don't have objective data to draw conclusions from, is the most reasonable thing not to say "I don't know"? How is "I choose to interpret this one way, ignoring all other possibilities" more reasonable?

Or are you still promulgating your borderline conspiratorial accusation that I somehow have an "ulterior motive" and that I'm really just biased negatively and my constant and repeat emphasis on not making value judgements is really me making negative value judgements I just don't want to admit?

As if it can't never be thought of as impressive unless it has impossible levels of data presented with it.

That's an almost insultingly inane statement. Demanding actual data with context and depth is not "impossible levels". No one is trying to stir up a philosophical debate on absolute certainty. This is a blatant attempt at a false binary, where either I accept your one-sentence level of data accuracy, or else am demanding "impossible levels" of precision.

What I'm asking for is the absolute BASICS of sound data analysis, in the face of some of the most superficial, generalized, oversimplified data possible. And you're making it out as though I wouldn't accept anything less than an affidavit personally signed by Sir Ronald Fisher. Ridiculous.

You don't think 85% of customers engaging with a secondary service as impressive?

I think that you not reading my explanation after I provided it TWICE is starting to feel like you're trolling.

We don't have enough data to know how many of those 175 users were active the entire year.

We also don't have enough data to know how many of those 175m users were active for more than one second. IMAGINE THAT, not having enough data!

[rhorle]

You are, again, missing the point entirely. And I have to, again, ask whether you didn't understand my explanation about how that data could suffer from gross distortion, or whether you simply didn't read it.

Gross distortion as part of a Qaurterly report would open up Amazon to shareholder lawsuits. Before questioning my ability to understand you may want to make sure that you understand all pertinent information, right? What is a level of growth that would be impressive to a reasonable person? Nothing? Not even 1,000%? It always requires data?

Reporting the usage stats of all 175 million users is an impossible level of data to present. It can't be summarized at all otherwise it is an unreasonable statement. How long would it take you to analyze all 175 million data points to decide if 70% growth, 85% engagement (based off of 200 million users even though user count was stated to be higher) is impressive? This is exactly what you are saying we have to use in order to be "reasonable". So why is it that you now reject requiring that data? Isn't it strange that when it supports your claim it is required to render judgement but when it doesn't it is now rejected? Lmao.

Individual activity doesn't matter for the statement. As it wasn't reporting on activity level over the past year. But about total usage and growth. Remember this started when you said most people see little value in it. So again you don't find 85% engagement of a secondary service impressive? 175 million users, of 200+ million total subscribers, is not impressive when you personally think it has little value because you wouldn't subscribe just for it? What would you find an impressive number, 100%?

[Celement]

In 2021 they stated they had 175 million users stream stuff. That is 25 million less then their total subscriber count. These were official statements to shareholders so they have more weight then a typical publicity statement. I haven't seen anything more recent but the pandemic seemed to shift it away from just being a freebie for a lot of people. They do offer a Prime Video only subscription as well but I have never seen any numbers for just that plan.

I mean... they use a lot of weasels words too. I recall sampling was used a lot and what does that mean? If I see a streamed 10 second clip in an add while logged in to order my fancy coffee beans I cant get here am I counted as sampling?

The numbers seem comically high even if this was a beloved series for their userbase.

[rhorle]

The numbers seem comically high even if this was a beloved series for their userbase.

I think you are confused. The 175 million users is in reference to total amount of subscribers using Prime Video at the time of the Q1 report. It does not reference a specific series let alone Rings of Power that wasn't even released at the time of the statement. It is also rare to use weasel words during SEC reports. While any fine is likely a blip to Amazon it is still something companies usually want to avoid. It could also open up lawsuits by share holders if they were mislead or lied to.

- - - Updated - - -

The overall thing is that they can quote whatever metric they want so it’s not lying, but it’s also not necessarily great.

85% of subscribers to a shopping service making use of a secondary benefit is not great? It is amazing how much people hate on the show (and apparently amazon) that something like that has to be anything but good.

[Biomega]

Gross distortion as part of a Qaurterly report would open up Amazon to shareholder lawsuits.

That's not true. They didn't lie, or misrepresent anything. They simply gave a very open statement, that could be interpreted in a number of ways, and that they could easily defend against criticism by simply saying they didn't say otherwise anywhere and they're technically correct. The problem is that YOUR INTERPRETATION categorically excludes potential problems without there being objective justification to do so. THEY didn't call their data impressive - YOU did.

And by the way: simplified data that is intentionally presented in ways that make it easy to assume a positive interpretation is often neither illegal (assuming the data is, technically speaking, accurate) nor uncommon. It happens ALL. THE. TIME. Smart investors get more data. In fact that's most of what big investment firms spend their time doing, instead of just reading company reports going "well AT FACE VALUE this all seems IMPRESSIVE, they wouldn't distort this, that'd be wrong and they might get sued!". But what do they know, they don't have your apparent supernatural ability to read one sentence and immediately know which way the wind is blowing.

What is a level of growth that would be impressive to a reasonable person? Nothing? Not even 1,000%? It always requires data?

Are you just, like, flat-out refusing to read my explanation or do you genuinely not understand it? I don't mean this as a personal attack - I'm happy to explain more, since quite clearly a question like this means you did not understand it at all. You seem to somehow think I'm hung up on the number; which is completely wrong, and not the point I was making at all, in any way. It's about the underlying mechanisms, not the output value. That's why I said in my example, the data could look the exact same - and that's true whether it's 7% or 70% or 7,000%. Doesn't matter for this one bit.

Reporting the usage stats of all 175 million users is an impossible level of data to present.

Yet another attempt at a false dichotomy. There is a giant chasm of additional information between the extremes of "175m users streamed stuff" and "Here's data on every single one of 175m users". Portraying it as though rejecting the former was demanding the latter is ridiculous, and exposes you as someone who is either arguing in extremely bad faith, or who doesn't know the first thing about the absolute basics of not only statistics, but reasoning in general. This is very concerning.

Demanding more than "175m users streamed stuff" is neither unreasonable nor uncommon. There's detailed statistical tables and all sorts of variegated metrics for that type of information, none of which rise to the level of "here's 175m detailed data sets, have fun reading them all one by one for the next 20 years, nerd". To even suggest that would be in play anywhere and in any way is completely asinine.

Individual activity doesn't matter for the statement.

It does, as I've demonstrated by example. You don't need extreme cases to distort the data; those simply illustrate at a greater resolution a problem that is also present at much lower incidence, and in many different forms. You're simply ignoring the very possibility for any of that, by pretending that engagement metrics are a monolithic one-value binary in which someone either watched at all or didn't watch at all, and that's all that matters. Which is completely fallacious for a data set like this.

[rhorle]

That's not true. They didn't lie, or misrepresent anything.

Then they couldn't have grossly distorted their statement. A statement not backed up by data would be a misrepresentation. This again shows how you have some bias against Amazon because you now are saying their statement is not a misrepresentation. It is not a lie. It is not a gross distortion as you claimed it could be. And yet we can't say it is impressive because it could be all of this things? Lmao.

This is why your explanations miss the mark. Because you won't admit that their statement is false yet at the same time argue that it could be false. Make up your mind. You can't keep arguing it both ways and no amount of explanation will change that inherent contradiction from you.

A person using Prime Video for 1 second is still a user. Just as a person using it for 1 year is a user. A 70% growth year over year brings context to the 175 million statistic. Other statements by Amazon saying they had 200+ million worldwide accounts at the time further bring context to the nature of that statement.

Again, Do you find 85% engagement in a secondary service that you see of little value as impressive? It isn't impressive that most people that find the service to have little value actually used it in 2020-2021? The insistence on "more data" is a red herring so you can continually avoid answering simple questions about a simple statement.

A large percent of users engaging in a service they have little value for is not impressive? What amount of users would you find impressive then?

[Biomega]

Then they couldn't have grossly distorted their statement.

And I didn't say they did. YOU DID. They gave you a simple, one-number metric without context or explanation. We can easily assume that number to be 100% accurate, but that doesn't mean it REPRESENTS the kind of VALUE JUDGEMENT you make about it, namely in this case that it's "impressive". Because it's trivial to arrive at the exact same data in ways that are anything but impressive. But they didn't show you HOW they got the data, the just showed you the one-number end result and let you make up your mind; and if you so happen to unconsciously exclude all the potential negatives that could make that data not impressive, that's not their problem.

And that's irrespective of whether or not those distortions are actually present. WE DON'T KNOW. That's why we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

A statement not backed up by data would be a misrepresentation.

I'm glad you agree. Your statement "this performance is impressive" is not backed up by data, and therefore a misrepresentation. QED.

It is not a gross distortion as you claimed it could be.

First, I didn't claim it was distorted. We can't know that. That's my point. You are introducing the bias by assuming that it's NOT distorted. I don't KNOW it's distorted; I don't know it's NOT distorted, either. That's why I say: "I don't know". YOU however say you DO know - but you can't possibly know, given that data, because there COULD be distortions that produce the exact same data. And without additional information, you have no way of knowing to what degree it is or is not distorted.

And yet we can't say it is impressive because it could be all of this things? Lmao.

Correct. You have no way of knowing your interpretation is correct, not without more information. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means you can't know either way, and choosing to claim one way (or the other) has no objective justification. "Lmao."

This is why your explanations miss the mark. Because you won't admit that their statement is false yet at the same time argue that it could be false. Make up your mind.

I think I've stated in just about every post I made that I don't know one way or the other; and neither do you. Don't try and pretend like me saying "I can't call it impressive because I don't know it is" is somehow the same as me saying "it's unimpressive". Those are not the same thing. VERY very very much not the same.

You can't keep arguing it both ways and no amount of explanation will change that inherent contradiction from you.

You introduced that contradiction, because you fundamentally misunderstand simple logic.

"I don't think it's X" != "I think it's -X"

A person using Prime Video for 1 second is still a user. Just as a person using it for 1 year is a user.

That's correct.

But in terms of business success, which is more successful? A platform that gets used for 1 second once, or one that gets used continuously for 1 year? If I have 175m people try my platform once for 1 second and never again, or if I have 175m people use my platform all the time for 1 year, ARE THOSE THE SAME LEVELS OF SUCCESS FOR MY PLATFORM, JUST BECAUSE I COULD SAY THEY HAVE "175m users" FOR BOTH?

Did you even think about this statement for 1 second?

[rhorle]

And I didn't say they did. YOU DID.

And I have to, again, ask whether you didn't understand my explanation about how that data could suffer from gross distortion, or whether you simply didn't read it.

You didn't say it? Lmao.

Correct. You have no way of knowing your interpretation is correct, not without more information. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means you can't know either way, and choosing to claim one way (or the other) has no objective justification. "Lmao."

The video is just a side benefit, and I sure as hell would never ever pay for AP just for the videos. As I'm sure is the case for most AP customers.

Which is a bullshit argument that is contradicted by your original statement. You have no problem answering what your opinion is of a subject without having data when it aligns with your viewpoint. Yet when it doesn't align with your viewpoint or disproves your view you rant and rave about how data is required to give any sort of answer.

So again what would you find impressive engagement numbers? What percent of growth can be called impressive? Stop refusing to answer simple answers with a BS excuse that you did not believe was important until I posted something "good" about Amazon.

[Biomega]

You didn't say it? Lmao.

No. Is reading an issue for you, or something? I said it COULD, not that it DID, and that I don't know one way or the other - unlike you, who seems convinced it DOESN'T, yet has no justification for that.

Which is a bullshit argument that is contradicted by your original statement.

No. I don't know FOR SURE it's like that, but I not only have enough data (from usage and viewing statistics etc.) but also simple logical inference from weighing of benefits to be REASONABLY SURE that statement is correct. That doesn't mean I KNOW it is (and I didn't say I did), just that given the available information I am reasonably certain of it.

And in exactly the same way, given the available information I am NOT reasonably certain that the numbers you gave are "impressive". You seem to be, which is fine. I don't think you have objective justification for it, but that doesn't mean you can't be convinced.

You have no problem answering what your opinion is of a subject without having data when it aligns with your viewpoint.

How do you know what data I do and do not have about the subject? Just curious. If you have ADDITIONAL data about the whole "175m is impressive" thing, feel free to present it. I said repeatedly that my criticism holds while you don't have more information; if you HAVE more information, it's a different situation.

You seem very quick to assume I don't have any data; but it's pretty trivial to look up enough data to justify the position that most people don't subscribe to AP for the video. There's years of it. Just google "amazon prime usage statistics" or whatever, and dive into the data. There's very detailed information on it.

Have you actually, you know, LOOKED INTO THIS at all before making your vitriolic accusations?

Of course you didn't. You just ASSUMED like you always do, instead of spending 5 seconds trying to find information.

So again what would you find impressive engagement numbers?

Again, numbers aren't the issue. Methodology is. I don't know what you mean by "engagement numbers". I need to know what the data is, how it's collected and structured, etc. before deciding what number would be impressive. Because those numbers are wholly contingent on the metric they're tied to.

You're trying to find some kind of one-size-fits-all absolute threshold, and you're still thinking that somehow I'm just hung up on the 70% and if it was 700% or whatever I'd be cool. Which only once more demonstrates you are so far out of your depth you've got anglerfish circling.

[rhorle]

I said it COULD

Then they couldn't have grossly distorted their statement.

We both said could. Before trying to accuse someone else of having issues reading you may want to try doing that yourself. Lmao.

No. I don't know FOR SURE it's like that, but I not only have enough data (from usage and viewing statistics etc.) but also simple logical inference from weighing of benefits to be REASONABLY SURE that statement is correct. That doesn't mean I KNOW it is (and I didn't say I did), just that given the available information I am reasonably certain of it.

That is a pretty big lie for you state. You have data on all 200+ million of Amazon's subscribers to know how they value Prime Video? Also doesn't having access to enough data to know how subscribers value a service also give you enough data to know how impressive Amazon's statement is? Yet you say you don't have enough data to give your opinion on one while enough for the other. Strange. This really does show that this is all some long winded BS because someone posted a statement that contradicts your view.

You can logically deduce something but when I did it I was called illogical. Bad faith to the core. Lmao.

[Biomega]

We both said could.

You said "couldn't", which is definitive. "Could" is not. Those are very different statements, with very different levels of certainty. "X could happen" means I don't know that it couldn't; "X couldn't happen" means you know it couldn't.

See for example: "it could rain today" - sure, maybe. "it couldn't rain today" - how do you know?!

That is a pretty big lie for you state. You have data on all 200+ million of Amazon's subscribers to know how they value Prime Video?

No. And that's not what I said. I said I have enough data to be reasonably convinced. For your whole "175m is impressive" thing, I do not have enough data to be reasonably convinced.

Nobody is talking about absolute certainty, something that is epistemologically impossible anyway. You've repeatedly tried to retreat into false dichotomies that position your sliver of data against totally exhaustive, perfect information as though those were the two options. They're not.

Also doesn't having access to enough data to know how subscribers value a service also give you enough data to know how impressive Amazon's statement is?

Potentially, I didn't evaluate the data with that in mind (largely because I only got into this back-and-forth with you today, but looked into AP usage data several months ago, for different unrelated reasons). It's entirely possible to get better data, and arrive at a conclusion that aligns with your "impressive" interpretation, by the way - I don't know one way or the other, but I wouldn't be shocked if data bore it out (I also wouldn't be shocked if it suggested a far more moot outlook). The data YOU'VE PROVIDED, however, do not reasonably lend itself to making that claim. If you want to investigate, and find and present more data, by all means. I'm not going to do it, because frankly the subject doesn't interest me all that much. If it did, I would.

My point isn't that I want to know how well AV is or isn't doing. My point is that if you're making claims, make them in proportion to the data you have. If your data can't support a claim, don't make it; get more data, and then present the claim when you have data that justifies it. That's how it works for ANY subject (for which data is at least in principle accessible). My goal is the promotion of sound epistemology, not to stick it to Old Man Bezos. I couldn't give two fucks about how well AV is or isn't doing, quite frankly.

You can logically deduce something but when I did it I was called illogical. Bad faith to the core. Lmao.

Because you've demonstrated a consistent lack of understanding of how logic works. I've pointed it out several times. Your deductions were flawed because you didn't use logic correctly, not because I think you can't use logical deductive reasoning to arrive at conclusions.

You're right and he's wrong. But he will never stop, this will keep going until you give up on him. So stop letting him clog up the thread by feeding the troll.

I think you're right. This is good exercise for me, because I deal a lot with these kinds of epistemological questions in my job. Getting students to understand proper reasoning is hard work, and requires frequent practice. But I get that this has gone to the point of derailment - and there's too much basic knowledge missing here anyhow to have a constructive outcome.

[rhorle]

You said "couldn't", which is definitive. "Could" is not. Those are very different statements, with very different levels of certainty. "X could happen" means I don't know that it couldn't; "X couldn't happen" means you know it couldn't..

So what does grossly distorted mean to you? Remember you've excluded "lie" and "misrepresent". So they couldn't have grossly distorted things even as a potential.

No. And that's not what I said. I said I have enough data to be reasonably convinced. For your whole "175m is impressive" thing, I do not have enough data to be reasonably convinced.

You have data to cover 200+ million subscribers but not for a lessor amount of subscribers? There is no way you analyzed enough about the majority of what Amazon's subscribers valued. Amazon doesn't typically release information like that which is why a statement giving user count is such a big deal. Yet you know exactly how majority of Amazon's 200+ million customers value a service?

Your advice on getting more data to support you claim is just as BS as the rest of your argument. Why? Because you didn't actually get data to support your claim about majority of Amazon subscribers not valuing its Prime Video service. I've used logic correctly you've just been arguing in bad faith and only accepting things as logical when it comes from you. Even when you lie or exaggerate about past research you've done.

The data I've provided does reasonably lend itself to making the claim. We have a statement yearly user engagement. We have yearly growth. We have total subscriber count (as a distinct piece of information). That is enough judgement to know if 70% growth and 86% engagement in a service that isn't valued is impressive. Your own data backs that up if Prime Video is as unvalued as you claim. Which is likely why you've been avoiding answering that very question, right?

[Shadowferal]

He’s not trying to have a good faith debate. He’s not learning anything from what you say. He’s just fucking with you.

I saw that in the wot thread. There's no logic in that guy's posts, and what he sees is twisted into something else. It's best to ignore him.

[Biomega]

I saw that in the wot thread. There's no logic in that guy's posts, and what he sees is twisted into something else. It's best to ignore him.

I think I'll go with that. There's just too much work explaining things to someone who very obviously either cannot comprehend the simplest things, or is unwilling to honestly engage with them.

Still - we all learned something from this

[rhorle]

I think I'll go with that. There's just too much work explaining things to someone who very obviously either cannot comprehend the simplest things, or is unwilling to honestly engage with them.

Is that why you avoid the simplest of questions? You keep turning from the honest discussion to only focus on your "lack of data" example that turned out to be something that you didn't actually lack on the subject.