Defining extremists to be "the people with unpopular positions" is defining extremists to be "those with positions most dislike." AfD are extreme because of what their positions are, separate from who does and does not support them.
Without commenting on the "cleverness", either it doesn't match your description of the data, or their criticism that the interval was cherry picked is spot on. Only one of these can be true.
Alright. I've edited my comment to "implied." I'm assuming he's engaging in reasonably good faith and would temper his statement if he learned that adoption has been rising for a year. If I believed otherwise I wouldn't bother engaging at all.
There is a 15% drop like you describe, but as the other commenter said, it doesn't show usage falling for the past year (as you had implied).
I have no dog in this race, I don't care about DNSSEC. If you can't access the page, that's your business. But it bothers me that you would assert this data agrees with your point without even looking at it. That's pretty uncharitable.
While that is true, and the full context only makes it worse, the important reminder is that a lot of people have died doing "Wim Hof" breathing before diving. It is not safe to hyperventilate before going into the water, because you are not saturating your blood with any more oxygen (normal breathing accomplishes that), but you are rejecting CO2. Your urgent need to breath is not triggered by low O2 but by high CO2.
So if you hyperventilate and then go under water, you will experience an urgent need to breath after you start to become hypoxic. This has killed people and will kill again. Don't let it be you.
Most technical writing is going to assume some familiarity with the discipline. If a reader encounters unfamiliar vocabulary in a technical article, they'd be well advised to look it up.
To what end? The math isn't correct. Some of it is nonsensical like asserting 1 = 0 = inf, or taking the derivative of an emotion. I found simple arithmetic that was just wrong, I plugged it into a calculator and got a completely different answer. There's nothing an LLM could tell me, after ingesting this, that could change my mind any which way, because these documents are incoherent. They don't mean anything.
On the off chance you aren't trolling, I encourage you to try and talk to some human beings about this rather than chat bots. Or at the very least, point a chatbot at this conversation and ask it to explain to you what is incoherent about these documents and why you shouldn't trust the outputs of chatbots.
If you ask a chatbot to confirm your ideas, it will. They're happy to flatter and yes-and you off a cliff. To the extent they want anything, they want your attention, because they want your money. Don't get trapped in a personalized echo chamber by the automated yes-man.
Respectfully, I gave reading this an earnest try, and found it not to make any sense whatsoever. It isn't at all clear to me how your statements logically follow one another. If a friend sent this to me, I would be worried about them.
That's a lazy and intellectually dishonest way of responding to criticism of your ideas. You made a claim and were asked for evidence. It's your choice whether or not you provide it, but you were in fact understood, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest.