Most facts are incomplete, it's almost impossible to give all the context to any given data point unless you just give people a URL and tell people to read for themselves.
For example, it's an incomplete fact to say that "if you live in a trailer park, you are considered homeless", but thankfully you provided the link to the complete fact!
From your source, a little more completeness for your fact:
"living in ...trailer parks... due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations"
Thankfully, it is not true that everyone whose permanent residence is a trailer park is counted as homeless.
Based on political contributions, police officers have donated their money to Democrats and Republicans almost in equal proportion for quite awhile... until 2018, when they became overwhelmingly Republican.
I was being too indirect. Your framework doesn't have predictive value. 'This person had an extremely favorable outcome, therefore they are elite' is a retrospective judgment, it can't be used to form a hypothesis. It is unfalsifiable.
Whether someone is Scottish, or any "easy to measure" fact, has nothing to do with the No True Scotsman fallacy.
My partner is a civil engineer so I go to a lot of ASCE happy hours and it is common wisdom among civil engineers that for every $100 you spend on infrastructure, you get like $113 to $117 in economic activity. I also believe that almost all federal infrastructure spending has Buy American clauses.
The linked Reason article makes some libertarian arguments against Buy American clauses that if you know anything about libertarianism you can anticipate, but I am not a libertarian and personally think that more things should have Buy American clauses.
Isn't your definition an example of a No True Scotsman fallacy?
Aren't you liable to wind up in situations where you find yourself saying "Ah-hah, now that person I thought was not one of the elite is now one of the elite because they didn't go to prison. Ah-hah, now that person I thought was one of the elite is not one of the elite, because they are going to prison."?
The degree to which our ethics should be consequentialist, or they should evaluate intent is worth discussing, but as consequences become more significant intent becomes more insignificant. I don't care if someone 'looks bad', or breaks any law if they prevent nuclear war.
Stanislav Petrov disobeyed orders in the face of "30 layers of verification" telling him to report 5 incoming nuclear missiles.
I think in any scenario where "nuclear war destroys a large portion of highways and communication equipment" then Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin will all be smoking craters.
It's impossible to know what would have happened if they hadn't, but if Julius and Ethel Rosenberg helping the Soviets achieve nuclear parity prevented the US from "using them when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind" then they should be thought of like Snowdens or Assanges.
> FAQ 2.1: The Earth’s temperature has varied before. How is the current warming any different?
> Earth’s climate has always changed naturally, but both the global extent and rate of recent warming are unusual. The recent warming has reversed a slow, long-term cooling trend, and research indicates that global surface temperature is higher now than it has been for millennia.
> It’s warming rapidly ...during the shift from the last glacial period to the current interglacial, the total temperature increase was about 5°C. That change took about 5000 years, with a maximum warming rate of about 1.5°C per thousand years, although the transition was not smooth. In contrast, Earth’s surface has warmed approximately 1.1°C since 1850–1900 ...for the past 2000 years, we have higher-resolution records that show that the rate of global warming during the last 50 years has exceeded the rate of any other 50-year period.
I think that's because of different vaccine uptake by age cohort. People 65+ have always been most likely to require intervention and they are also the most vaccinated age cohort - ~80% vaccinated in the US. [0]
Maybe you're thinking of Russell's teapot, which is the idea that the burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims? That's specifically for unfalsifiable claims.
Or maybe you're thinking of the burden of proof concept from jurisprudence? That is a high standard because it keeps innocent people from having their lives destroyed.
The IPCC reports [0], predicated upon the anthropogenic theory of climate change, predict a lot of people will have their lives destroyed, and the theory specifies the mechanism which will determine the magnitude. You and I as agents in democracies (I'm guessing) can help determine that magnitude - maybe whether it's millions of families displaced and destroyed or hundreds of millions.
I think the philosophical stance we should apply is the precautionary principle. If we're unsure of whether or not it is harmful that our activities are changing the composition of our atmosphere, of our oceans, and of our soil, we should at least, as a precaution, reduce the rate at which we're changing our environment.
"...it is particularly frustrating as my personal FB account is tied to not only my Oculus library (which I can no longer access) but also my FB business page"
It isn't true that children whose permanent residence is a trailer park are counted as homeless.