cherry-picking

This is good, much better than cherry-picking results at arbitrary intervals, but it might be slowing you down.

Your inability to come up with a meaningful definition, combined with your apparent cherry-picking of the data, likely contributes to the downvotes you've received.

The current rate of warming is faster now than at any time in the last 11,000 years [1], True, but this is cherry-picking the data.

We're cherry-picking the best example in Dixon, not a typical one.

This one conveys an opinion by cherry-picking facts and quotes.

But that might be optional, it'd be like cherry-picking a pull request, I think github doesn't close the original in that case?

You're cherry-picking one photo from that slideshow.

You're asking to assume patents are useful until proven otherwise, and waving your hands about cherry-picking, when in fact you'd have to cherry-pick pretty severely to find an example of a software patent which would stand up to an honest evaluation of its novelty.

It did this by largely cherry-picking the parts it liked from the Renaissance scientific thinkers along with certain Irish and British figures like Hobbes, Locke, and Mill but without ever confronting the Germanic philosophy at the peak of its development (the only notable exception being British idealism, which was shortly replaced by the logical positivists).

You're either cherry-picking your intervals or have a very weird definition of "progress".

I also really dislike that whole argument style of cherry-picking a "disruptive" innovation that happened to succeed but ignoring all the others that either failed or didn't deliver for decades.

Assessment is hard enough when you don't have preconceived notions of the molds other people fit into; if you start assessing people already cherry-picking assumptions about them based on what societal fashion suggests is "normal," then your ability to fairly assess them is already screwed.