Walking Directional indicator

When you are walking with someone and you use arms to show them the way to go.

I was walking with Kelly and I used my walking directional indicator to let her know which way to go

by Manuel59manuel July 23, 2017

Flori-cal linear induction tube

This is a fantasy super high speed rail deep underground which makes it possible to travel from florida to california in 3 hours! The inspiration for this idea comes from donald fagens early '80s hit single "I gy this verse specifically: 'on that train all graphite and glitter under sea by rail 90 minutes from New York to Paris well by :76 we'll be a-ok! What a beautiful ❤️ world 🌎 this will be what a glorious. Time to be free!'

We caught the
Flori-cal linear induction tube at noon in Miami and 3 hours later we arrived in San Diego at noon local. We went to the zoo then caught a bite to eat at horton plaza and made it in time for an 8pm curtain at the San Diego Opera
It let out at 11pm so we made it back to the station for some drinks then we caught the 2am local flori-cal for a 3 hour ride back to Miami and arrived there at 8am local time!

by 4realazitgits April 17, 2021

Lord Lucifer Lad Invictus

Brother Biston’s brother in-law

This Dumb ass changed his name to Lord Lucifer Lad Invictus

by Gyyeeeee July 12, 2022

The DL Indicator

A predictable way to get better prices in stock market, options and futures investing in the direction he talks about in reference going out several weeks. Do your own due diligence.

"If you had listed and used the DL Indicator you would have made $10,000 instead of lost $15,000. There is always tomorrow."

by Slanginfoguy August 12, 2024

The DL Indicator

A predictable way to get better prices in the direction he talks about in the next few weeks for stock markets, options etc. Do your own due diligence.

"If you had followed the DL Indicator you would be up $10,000 and not down $15,000. There is always tomorrow."

by Slanginfoguy August 12, 2024

Fallacy of Impossible Induction

The mistaken belief that because complete induction (examining every case) is impossible, no inductive conclusion can be trusted. This fallacy rejects all generalizations on the grounds that we haven't examined every instance—ignoring that induction works by sampling, not census. It's the logic of "you haven't read every book, so you can't say books exist," of "you haven't met every French person, so you can't generalize about French culture." The fallacy of impossible induction is beloved of those who want to dismiss well-supported generalizations by demanding impossible standards of proof. It's a cousin of the perfect knowledge fallacy, and just as paralyzing.

Fallacy of Impossible Induction Example: "She cited studies showing the benefits of exercise. He responded with the fallacy of impossible induction: 'But you haven't studied every person who ever exercised. How do you know it works for everyone?' She said science doesn't require studying everyone; it requires representative samples. He said that wasn't proof. She said that was how proof works. He remained unconvinced, which was his right, but also his loss."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 17, 2026

Fallacy of Exhaustive Induction

The mistaken belief that only exhaustive induction—examining every possible case—can establish truth. This fallacy rejects all probabilistic, statistical, or sampling-based reasoning as insufficient, demanding certainty that is rarely available and never necessary. It's the logic of "you can't prove all swans are white until you've seen every swan," ignoring that science doesn't prove in that sense. The fallacy of exhaustive induction is the mirror image of the fallacy of impossible induction: both set impossible standards, one by rejecting induction entirely, the other by demanding a form of induction that's rarely possible. Together, they form a pincer movement against any empirical claim.

Fallacy of Exhaustive Induction Example: "He demanded exhaustive proof that climate change was real: 'Have you measured every temperature reading everywhere on Earth for the last hundred years?' No, because that's impossible. But you don't need exhaustive proof; you need representative proof. He demanded the impossible and therefore rejected the possible. The fallacy had done its work: blocking belief with an unmeetable standard."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 17, 2026