This all still doesn't explain how "Macs rule" is a valid and unbiased explanation of how MacBooks would come to account for over one-in-two laptops sold.
Why on Earth do you want someone to defend "Macs rule" as unbiased? Who is claiming it is unbiased?
I would say the same to you: why should I know who I am "name-calling?
Because then you'd realise why you are being downvoted. It's like you are downvoting Mr Burns for being biased in favour of nuclear power, or something. Yegge's style is humorous and pushy, not graphs and references. Lots of stuff he writes sounds a bit silly.
Why on Earth do you want someone to defend "Macs rule" as unbiased? Who is claiming it is unbiased?
I would say the same to you: why should I know who I am "name-calling?
Because then you'd realise why you are being downvoted. It's like you are downvoting Mr Burns for being biased in favour of nuclear power, or something. Yegge's style is humorous and pushy, not graphs and references. Lots of stuff he writes sounds a bit silly.