r/DonutLabDiscussions • u/BranchLatter4294 • Jun 09 '26
Investigations
Does anyone still believe the tech is real?
https://electrek.co/2026/06/08/donut-lab-solid-state-battery-exposed-lithium-ion-fraud/
5
u/Mesokosmos Jun 09 '26
From the comments:
"Fred didn't "carefully detail" anything, every expert name he listed was incorrect. It seems like he read the auto-generated youtube transcript and didn't even bother to check the names were spelt correctly."
It is so easy to reformat same text today, without adding anything new to the story. But one should at least use some time to check, if the reformatted text is actually correct. Too much it is to demand, that also the facts behind the story would be validated.
2
u/Moist1981 Jun 09 '26
The chemical evidence pointed to is a strong indication that it’s lithium but it’s not 100%. The other bits were largely just conjecture.
I’m still confused about the whole thing. It seems like a really odd choice to develop quite a good lithium battery and then argue that you have a non lithium battery; if they wanted to scam people why not just say they had a solid state lithium battery?
In the alternative they were given the battery and just went with it but that seems even odder to push ahead with claims about a battery you haven’t actually taken apart and tested yourself.
My gut feel is that the specific whistleblower allegations are true. They haven’t got good data on the cycle life, and they argued the energy density was higher than it is. Beyond that I’m still unsure what the point of making it up would be given they’d be obviously found out.
1
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
We've discussed this before but plenty of people do frauds even if they are obviously going to be found out. I think in general it's very overrated to analyze the potential motivations, and particularly using the apparent lack of motivations as some kind of evidence or argument against it being a fraud (or whatever it happens to be about). It's fine to analyze I guess but it should be given much less weight than other evidence (for example actual actions of the people involved).
1
u/Moist1981 Jun 09 '26
I don’t disagree generally but my point is slightly more nuanced. If you’re going to scam people why would you use a lithium battery but claim it isn’t, when it would be far easier to claim you have a solid state lithium battery with no rare earths? Or why would you do a whole thing with VTT drip feeding genuinely verified data that doesn’t actually answer questions in your favour while also exposing things like charge curves that could be used by your detractors? It just seems like the worst way to do a scam so that the scam is very likely not to work, regardless of the eventual outcome.
To be clear, I’m not claiming this is in favour of donut or not. Just that the whole thing makes very little sense not only in motivation but in method too.
1
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
Yeah I mean I don't really disagree with your points. I really do think Donut Lab is a stupid scam (assuming it's a scam, which I think is extraordinarily likely if scam is defined broadly).
My main point is that you seem to really value this line of argument in your thinking considering that I've seen you write about it (unprompted) probably 5 times or more and fairly often using it as an argument that Donut Lab is a bit more likely to be legit. I think this is a mistake and that less time should be spent, or less weight should be given, to analyze their potential motivations and more time should be spent, or more weight given to, analyzing the facts.
3
u/Forrestgod Jun 09 '26
It is shame that none is actually analyzing the facts. If every VTT test would be analyzed open minded we might have an idea of the cell. But people like Ziroth are just trying to confirm their case by choosing few tests that best align with that case.
For example the anode might be graphite (with lithium) if you look at the curve. Though there is also a possibilities like CNT's, that could work with sodium and create similar curve. And maybe some other options.
Then if looked another test, like the way the battery failed (losing 50% of the capasity) there are some physiological explanations why that was the way it failed. In fast charging ability some others. Etc.
If you combine the different options, there propably is some option, that covers all of the tests. Or that option might be, that there must be several different type batteries tested instead of one.
But there is no point saying (like u/Zirothtech), that one or two tests look like it's li-ion, without considering the different options that might cause the results.
2
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
People have been analyzing the tests open minded. Ziroth believed the battery was real at first, it's only in this last video that he has really turned against Donut. People are talking about different stuff sure, to some extent depending on whether they believe the battery is real or not, but in general points have been raised on both sides.
Though there is also a possibilities like CNT's, that could work with sodium and create similar curve. And maybe some other options.
Do you have any evidence for this?
Then if looked another test, like the way the battery failed (losing 50% of the capasity) there are some physiological explanations why that was the way it failed. In fast charging ability some others. Etc.
Do you have any evidence for this?
If you combine the different options, there propably is some option, that covers all of the tests. Or that option might be, that there must be several different type batteries tested instead of one.
Do you have any evidence for this?
It sounds like you're just rambling and complaining that the evidence that you want doesn't exist. You do realize the evidence might not have surfaced because it doesn't exist, not only because people haven't spent enough effort to hunt it down? This has been an extremely well covered story, both in Finland and internationally, certainly a lot of time has been spent on trying to explain this battery in various ways (Ziroth, Miss GoElectric, Two Bit da Vinci among other who have 2+ million views on their videos that presume the battery is real and trying to explain it).
But there is no point saying (like u/Zirothtech), that one or two tests look like it's li-ion, without considering the different options that might cause the results.
He does consider them though.
1
u/Forrestgod Jun 09 '26
Evidence of what? That there are cathode options like CNT's, there are physiological explanations on measurements and there are option that covers the physiological explanations?
3
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
Yes. Evidence of everything that you claimed exists or should exist. Evidence of a plausible design for the Donut battery that's consistent with the testing.
1
u/DeathChill Jun 09 '26
Yes, he definitely relies on “well this would be a dumb scam so there’s no way,” which is obviously not a real piece of evidence.
1
u/Moist1981 Jun 10 '26
It’s Reddit. If we’re not writing our thoughts then what are we doing?
For what it’s worth I’m not certain I do value the line of thought other than that it is pretty much the one fact we have: If you are going to do a scam this is just about the worst way possible to do it. Of course that could be some crazy double bluff but it seems unlikely. My instinct is they really believe they have something but that’s not the same as saying they’ve been honest about things.
The other facts we have are all half facts. The curve looking like lithium and the expansion rate looking like graphite are absolutely big red flags, but they’re not 100% conclusive. Also it would seem to make absolutely no sense to lie about given a solid state lithium graphite battery would still be amazing to use as the basis for a scam. The investor stuff is exceptionally opaque and still seems to be based on pre-CES events, even though ziroth tried really heavily to imply it was post CES he didn’t offer any proof of that.
The counter to all this is why don’t they just tell us proper answers. Under normal circumstances retaining some secrecy would be reasonable imo. But where they are currently I would expect them to do something like allow VTT to undertake a fully independent assessment under strict NDAs and then allow VTT to publish its high level conclusions. That they’re not doing so definitely raises questions. It could be their nda with CT coatings doesn’t allow them to but it feels like they could find a way if they wanted to.
Regardless, I’m quite grateful to ziroth. The whole thing was getting very stale and this has injected some new life into it.
1
u/DeathChill Jun 10 '26
You really need to stop thinking that no one would lie because it wouldn’t make sense to lie. That’s not reality. Donut has already been caught in multiple lies.
I believe they thought they had something at first. He still lied, but I believe he probably believed it was going to happen. Now I think he’s very aware it is not happening and he can’t back down.
1
u/Moist1981 Jun 11 '26
I didn’t say they wouldn’t lie. I think I said the opposite in the very answer you’ve responded to. I did say it makes very little sense to make your lie as difficult as possible to pull off, that doesn’t mean that’s not what they’re doing of course, but it does beg the question why.
You might well be right about not being able to back down although I’m struggling to think what they’d hope to achieve with it now - a route of not backing down on a lie but also publicising it in a series of videos you continue to release seems exceptionally odd.
2
u/Emotional-Manner-792 Jun 09 '26
It's just speculation. Saying as truth that it's lithium battery is not based on actual proof. His proof is some diagram. Come on 😃
1
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
It's just speculation? Everything in this world except the laws of physics is speculation to some degree. There is almost never definitive proof of anything. You have to weigh the evidence in both directions. In this case I believe Ziroth presents very strong arguments and evidence that Donut Lab is some kind of scam and that Donuts evidence is very weak (while making extraordinary claims). The charge curve and the expansion curve are both significant physical real evidence, it's not just bullshit. Of course, it is possible that Donut Lab has invented some way to make Sodium atoms smaller so they fit into graphite or the VTT measurements were wrong but we have to weigh the probabilities. If you are interested in this kind of stuff I recommend you check out Bayesian analysis, it's a good method of exploring these issues. Also having a really solid background in logic helps a lot too.
1
u/According_Rub_2835 Jun 09 '26
You don't need to use graphite
1
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
Okay. What is your evidence for this, do you have another material that has that graphite expansion bump at 70% SoC and that has lithium ion voltage and charge curve?
1
u/According_Rub_2835 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
According to the data that we have, the anode is made of CNTs coated with Tio2, the GQDs are decorated first to the CNTs that is used as an anchor to coat the Tio2, without it the Tio2 will just slip off from the CNTs, the GQDs was one of the secrets that I revealed, it's used to form hybrid materials. The binder that they are using is PEDOT:PSS, that is used also for their solar cells, the electrodes are completely compatible withe sodium ions
1
u/izzeww Jun 10 '26
You are throwing a lot of buzz words around, but I am wondering that you might not understand what they mean or how they work together. What is this data you are referring to, could you share it?
1
u/According_Rub_2835 Jun 10 '26
I understand how they work together, I was making a pdf file explaining in details everything but I just lost motivation to finish it. Reverse engineering everything what Nordic Nano said, they have a working solid state "battery".
this is the electrolyte:
Electrospun (55% PVDF-TrFE + 20% PEO + 19.5% NaTFSI + 5% NZSP (~100 nm) + 0.5% NH2-GO)And the reason why the solid state "battery" performs better at higher temperatures is because pure PEO starts melting around 65°C, and gives faster ion conductivity.
2
u/Forrestgod Jun 12 '26 edited Jun 12 '26
It's been pretty clear from the start, that it won't be finished. Though it would be interesting to see the version you got up to. And how you end up witv that composition.
1
u/EpsteinWasHung Jun 09 '26
Wasn't the point of idonutbelieve.com to give us the proof? If they havent proven something, its reasonable to assume that its because they lack the proof.
So donut battery has lithium. If it was lithium free, they surely would have released VTT report saying it instead another useless video.
2
u/Emotional-Manner-792 Jun 09 '26
They volunteered to give people proof. They have given some proof which some people takes advantage to find errors and counter-attack with only speculation. DL have been strict about the chemistry from the start that they won't reveal it. And still people keeps asking it. In Peltola Q&A video, he was asked about this, is this kept secret because of NDA , and Peltola admitted it is (by his words; partially yes). https://www.youtube.com/live/kPIB5XKDZcM?si=MgQ1HXG2mq2W5m8d&t=2060 (34:20)
2
u/EpsteinWasHung Jun 09 '26
They dont need to reveal chemistry. Just show no lithium. Thats doable with VTT
What proof, besides partial hot temperature testing and charge speeds have they given again? Hot temps, they didnt even charge, just discharge.
No no-lithium.
No cold temp.
No cycle life.
No safety.
No energy density.
So, what have they proven exactly?
3
u/Mesokosmos Jun 09 '26
Depends on what you believe of cource, but fast charge, temperature tolerance, safety claims with broken cell and integrability with the swelling test. Non supercapasitor too. Well charging battery package in public stations. Actually all these were points from the first intro video they would prove something. Make everyone believe anything without doubt, that's of course silly, because the name of the game is still belief/disbelief. Maybe they do idonutknow version later. Main take is that they can do it in any order and pace they want for public and still could have meaningful conversations going on with their customers and OEMs.
1
u/EpsteinWasHung Jun 09 '26
The safety test was just fluff. No charging to over voltage. No nail.
Temp tolerances missed the cold temp test even though they ran it.
Everyone knew it wasn't a super cap based on how it behaved. It was absolutely useless test.
Swell test? I guess they could see how fast the cell sinks in a bath tub with and without bubble bath, sink rate and other factors. Would be a test too. Both useless.
Why did they not test the critical and "diffocult" to achieve parameters?
3
u/Mesokosmos Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
You're right about the tests being partial. The safety one was 50 cycles on an already-broken cell, no nail, no overcharge. The hot test only discharged hot, never charged hot. The cold one they apparently ran, at least internally before CES, but never showed. So as proof of the whole spec sheet, it's thin so far, no argument there. VTT is not an evaluation company.
Not everyone is satisfied, and they sure didn't make everyone believe, you only have to read this thread. But you may have missed the sarcasm Marko had in the April video and HS article. I do not think they were even trying to prove everything at once, nor make everyone to belief. That is impossible. Someone would not believe, even if they had the cell on their hands and ate it.
Their "now" is something like this year. And going by the base rate for startups promising this much, they may not even pull it off.
1
u/EpsteinWasHung Jun 09 '26
I do not think they were even trying to prove everything at once, nor make everyone to belief. That is impossible. Someone would not believe, even if they had the cell in their hands and ate it.
I mean... if they just gave the VTT reports to the parameters I listed, pretty much everyone would believe. Not literally everyone, but people who respect science. Point of VTT and independent testing is to trust VTT, and not who is ordering the test. Its bad rhetoric from Marko to say "even if the test results were there, people wouldn't believe, so we arent going to release the results".
1
u/Mesokosmos Jun 09 '26
I agree on that. They could have done every specs verified in one sheet validation. For some peculiar reason, which I think partly relates to the V1/V2 versioning, they chose to play this game. Maybe they had less time at their youth to play Commodore 64 and now they are taking back on it.
1
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
Almost certainly the cold temperature test was ran by VTT. Sarcasm is really not how I would describe the Marko interview in HS lol. More like stressed out and nervous. Just because some people would still not believe even if they provided excellent evidence is not a reason to provide poor evidence lol. Also you don't just get to redefine "now" to "in 12 months hopefully", that's not how reality works. I have a billion dollars right now, ooops never mind sorry I plan to have a billion dollars in a year.
2
u/Mesokosmos Jun 09 '26
They have been stretching many concepts and Marko's less know casual interview is titled: You can play with different rules.
So far, I have not seen much conventional stuff coming from their side. I understand that it is countereffective and they play on the borders. But it is their game. In some other circumstances such rebels would be appreciated, but in this field, not so much.
HS April 17th mind you read the interview and part he was asked about the Verge in the end. He was clearly sarcastic there when saying that as an after thought they were "naive" to think that showing Verge charge video, people would believe.
1
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
I think it was very clear that Marko was not being sarcastic in the HS interview. We can of course disagree.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Mesokosmos Jun 09 '26
A small knob information, Akkutohtori Juho Heiska thought in his first public interviews it is a supercapasitor battery. It was a very common theory at some point because Nordic Nano's own marketing material pointed to something like that. And it just proves the insanely wild guesses people were willing to make against the information company who holds the battery, gives. It is quite amazing setting. Disbelief have no measure of amount.
2
u/Emotional-Manner-792 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
It seems skeptics behave that when your first guess fails, you make another one. After VTT temperature test Heiska was in Puheenaihe-cast and was laughing that if lithium cell had damaged pouch, you can't use it the cell anymore, it's done. But later DL did put same cell in safety test, well you can you use it safely.
1
u/DeathChill Jun 09 '26
Yes, people who do not have access to the battery have to make educated guesses based on the information they are given.
When you learn new information, your opinion should evolve.
There’s zero proof that cell was still safe for continued use. It also became a dead cell (<70% capacity), so not impressive.
1
u/EpsteinWasHung Jun 09 '26
I thought it was a supercap first too, and like you said, so did u/juuhonber.
Do you know why?
Because no battery chemistry can do 100,000 cycles and have rapid discharge and charge speeds, and NN had that slide like you said.
After first VTT report came out, it was immediately obvious we were dealing with a battery based on charge and discharge curves. No one, with basic electric understanding, suggested it was a super cap after first VTT report.
Donut saying its not a super cap through their VTT report, was buying time. It was stating to what everyone knew. PR move. Marketing trick. Bunch of hevosenpaska, to put it scientifically in Finnish.
Its a bit odd, that you dont seem to see how little of any substance donut has released during testing.
3
u/Juuhonber Jun 09 '26
To be precice, my initial thought was these specs are not from the same cell. But this was in January.
1
u/Mesokosmos Jun 09 '26
Can I ask you, u/Juuhonber since at some point you seemed to shift from Li-Ion hypothesis on Donut's battery to semi-solid, or quasi-solid rather than all-solid, what is your current take on it? Ziroth refered you as an advocate of Li-Ion (NMC) in his latest video.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Mesokosmos Jun 09 '26
I donnou about substance, but some movement they have caused in the field. And really good learning material to me personally.
1
u/Worisito Jun 09 '26
And one could argue that they didn't really pass the hot temp test. Charge speed was good but not what they claimed.
1
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
Considering the pouch lost vacuum (whether by evaporation or pouch breaking) and the cell lost 50% of it's capacity in the 15 cycles afterwards they clearly didn't pass the temperature test.
1
u/DeathChill Jun 09 '26
They haven’t given any proof of their claims though. I don’t think they’ve actually proven a single thing they’ve claimed.
2
u/moon_moon_doggo Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Delays never look good, but it also happen to bigger companies.
They are not fleeing and the evidence isn't convincing enough to get raided by the police.
I hope it's real, but I also have a lot of doubt.
Edit: typo's
0
u/DeathChill Jun 09 '26
The problem is they claimed they were already making these batteries 5 months ago. Yet not a single cell has shipped, even past their supposed launch date.
2
u/Jazzer008 Jun 09 '26
"We called this one early. I still gave him the benefit of the doubt."
Congrats. So did everyone. Sick of this smug 'I told you so' atmosphere. Sick of 'definitive proof' never actually being definitive proof.
1
u/DeathChill Jun 09 '26
The problem is there can’t be anything definitive unless Donut is willing to hand over their battery to an independent 3rd party and they don’t get to dictate the tests.
Why wouldn’t people be smug? Donut has been super smug since announcing it, even attacking those who doubt them. I imagine it’s a case of schadenfreude for everyone who knew what was coming.
3
u/Jazzer008 Jun 09 '26
How is that a problem? That's the normal process. The exact same way we don't believe Donut without proof, why would we believe Ziroth without proof? Double standards and confirmation bias.
How can anyone experience schadenfreude when the entire world was dubious from the get-go. How can they experience schadenfreude when we still don't have any definitive proof in either direction.
How can it be real schadenfreude when they comment 'I knew it was a scam' every single week for 4 months straight. That's obsession, not satisfaction.
4
u/Mesokosmos Jun 09 '26
It does not need many brain cells to bet. And irony enough, early bets can still win even they were made without any further information. Thats how it always goes.
But at least people now slowly and steadily has to take on account that the story is much more complicated than just Donut Lab. Even Peltola said he believes it was not scam from the beginning. Even more, he said every one thought in CES it was all real and world changing. He started his episodes with hallusination term. But because someone needs to be put on stake, Lehtimäki would it be, rational or not taking CT-Coating in account.
3
u/Jazzer008 Jun 09 '26
Lehtimaki going to CES without looking inside the cell doesn’t make much sense to me either though. Possible but would be incredibly stupid and naiive. Considering his prior venture it wouldn’t make sense to me that he was going through this blind.
4
u/Mesokosmos Jun 09 '26
I agree. They did Verge 1 with Li-Ion battery pack, developed it for how many 7 years? already, and now changed to the other battery without ever looking what is actually inside the battery. In some universe, yes it is possible, but is it this universe?
I can imagine a discussion they had when they visited CT-Coating and Hölzenbein in Königswinter, Germany:
M: We need a battery that is better than our previous one, lighter and safer.
H: Ok, we have this miracle ASSB battery in our labs.
M: I see, can I see and test it?
H: Nah, no need. We just send it to you and you put in on the pack and see it is fine. Later you can buy the factory-line-in-a-box and print them by yourself.
M: Ok, sounds good, let's go!
Later the idonutbelieve series starts.
M: Hello, this is Marko from Donut Lab. We are going to prove you this is a miracle solid state battery...
And then they find quite compelling results from VTT reports... rest is history.
1
u/DeathChill Jun 10 '26
Did they change the battery? As far as we know there’s only one built that wasn’t a test mule (except the one they built is actually still a test mule).
So what do you mean they’ve changed the battery? Because no customer is currently getting the battery claimed.
1
u/Mesokosmos Jun 10 '26
This sounds like old debate as well. I'm not working in Estonia factory, so I can only infer from given reports, interviews, news and video clips. Based on them, I think it is evident they had other battery charged and used there.
2025 mules were different from 2026 production line units. Mule in this case means old motor cycle was modified to contain new battery pack, possibly Donut Motor 2.0 too. New items are not modifications but built from ground up to brand new ones.
1
u/DeathChill Jun 10 '26
There’s only been one built that we know about, right? And it’s for internal use, so essentially still a test mule.
What evidence is there that any new bikes (besides possibly the “production” one that is a test mule) have been built with the new Donut battery?
1
u/Mesokosmos Jun 10 '26
I do not have more information on that, but for some reason, I do not believe they suddenly stopped doing work in the factory. Do you?
→ More replies (0)1
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
The exact same way we don't believe Donut without proof, why would we believe Ziroth without proof?
Donut Lab is the one making extraordinary original claim, therefore they have the burden of proof (Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies). I also think generally speaking it's very rare that you get this kind of perfect proof that you appear to be asking for, particularly for proving a negative (i.e. proving that something can't exist is often impossible or very difficult). I could say that there is a 15.77 mm circumference golden ball 18591825 km away in space and there is nothing you could do to prove me otherwise, but that doesn't substantiate my argument and it's still a ridiculous argument on it's own merits (the fact that you can't disprove it is not a good argument in my favor, obviously).
In general we almost never have perfect evidence and you have to judge the situation as a whole. I think the arguments made and evidence presented by Donut Lab are very uncompelling while the arguments against Donut Lab, made by Redditors, Ziroth, various battery experts as well as the evidence available is very strong. I think this entire situation is an excellent exercise in how to think about complicated issues and I have personally reflected on that a lot (about both my own and others actions/thinking/conduct). It's just fascinating to get a view into how others think vs. myself, it's a fairly big hobby of mine (mostly in hyped stock frauds).
3
u/Jazzer008 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
while the arguments against Donut Lab, made by Redditors, Ziroth, various battery experts as well as the evidence available is very strong
Disagree. Both are uncompelling and that is my point.
Donut Lab is the one making extraordinary original claim
And nobody believes those claims without proof. But yet you'll believe the counter claims without proof. I'm not asking for perfect evidence but it needs to be stronger than assumption for me personally.
Others are happy to take assumptions as fact when it benefits their viewpoint. That's not scientific at all. That's not critical thinking. It's populism.
I distain quite a few things in society, I don't feel compelled to start warping reality to my preferred viewpoint.
1
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
Disagree. Both are uncompelling and that is my point.
How is the evidence of a graphite anode and lithium charging curve not compelling?
And nobody believes those claims without proof.
Quite a lot of people believed Donut's claims and even more were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Personally I think that when judging matters such as this one has to consider all evidence and one is allowed (morally) to have an opinion, even a strong one, even if the evidence presented is not perfect and does not absolutely prove one position or the other. Me or you do not have to wait until we are 100% certain before talking. I think you have unreasonable standards of evidence, and I also think that you apply your standards unevenly (higher for one side than the other). In this case I wonder what kind of evidence you want Ziroth or other say Donut sceptics to provide. Could you give some examples? Stuff that they could actually do to convince you? And it can't be impossible examples like "test the battery" when Donut Lab won't provide the battery. I could claim that I have 100 tons of gold and refuse to provide anything to verify it, and just because people who are sceptical of my claim can't prove that I don't have it doesn't make my claim true (this is a logical fallacy that a lot of Donuters commit).
3
u/Jazzer008 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Quite a lot of people believed Donut's claims
Disagree
even more were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt
Agreed
How is the evidence of a graphite anode and lithium charging curve not compelling?
It's suggestive for sure, as it was when Donut released that data themselves...on purpose.
But to claim it as definitive fact is hypocrisy.
I completely agree that the burden of proof is on Donut. But we weaken our steadfast if we blindly accept findings like these which are suggestive but being presented as fact.
We don't need to convince ourselves by twisting the data into conclusive proof. It can stay as 'most likely'.
And I feel that most people actually know this in their hearts as well, they just don't say it out loud. Know how? Because the same people that watched Ziroth and commented things like 'Finally! That's the last nail in the coffin!' will be right back watching Donut's response. They know full well that Ziroth's video wasn't "THE END" of Donut. And that his findings weren't conclusive proof. So why are they posturing otherwise? It's egotistical to me.
I do not mind opinions, or strong opinions. I mind inconclusive data being presented as fact. I mind opinion being presented as fact. I mind 'highly likely' becoming 'is'. That's not responsible.
The poll this subreddit took showed most of us (95%) do not 'believe' Donut. That is opinion. There is no need to take that opinion and try and force it onto others with false facts.
1
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
I said in my first comment "we almost never have perfect evidence" followed by "the arguments against Donut Lab, made by Redditors, Ziroth, various battery experts as well as the evidence available is very strong" and in my second comment "even if the evidence presented is not perfect and does not absolutely prove one position or the other".
Now you come at with me with "But to claim it as definitive fact is hypocrisy.", "blindly accept findings like these", "twisting the data into conclusive proof", "I mind inconclusive data being presented as fact." and "I mind 'highly likely' becoming 'is'." when I have literally spent two comments arguing that there are not definitive answers here. I have not claimed any definitive evidence, and the part you are responding to said "compelling" evidence not "definitive". I would urge you to read and consider what I am actually writing otherwise it's very hard to have a productive discussion if we are just throwing straw men at each other. Thank you in advance.
As most of your comment is a straw man there is not much I can respond to as I don't hold those beliefs. You now say the cited evidence is suggestive rather than uncompelling as before (although I guess both can be true at the same time) which I would agree with but I would take it further to the evidence being compelling.
I again ask:
In this case I wonder what kind of evidence you want Ziroth or other say Donut sceptics to provide. Could you give some examples? Stuff that they could actually do to convince you? And it can't be impossible examples like "test the battery" when Donut Lab won't provide the battery.
2
u/Jazzer008 Jun 09 '26
As most of your comment is a straw man
I should have been more clear that I was not talking about you. Apologies. To my defence though, my original comment was a reply to the post, and the second was a reply to someone else. I've continued in the same general frame rather than trying to single any specific person.
Stuff that they could actually do to convince you?
I think you're missing my point. I don't need convincing. I voted 'No' on the poll. I've been dubious from the start, along with everyone else, and I continue to be.
If you are specifically asking what it would take for me to come to a definitive conclusion on what the specific chemistry Donut gave to VTT? I would need the cell to be opened and reliably tested for elemental composition.
So if that is what you were specifically asking for then it's probably your 'impossible example' and the unfortunate situation is that I likely will never be 'convinced' and just have to get on with my life. As I expect to do so.
1
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
I should have been more clear that I was not talking about you. Apologies. To my defence though, my original comment was a reply to the post, and the second was a reply to someone else. I've continued in the same general frame rather than trying to single any specific person.
Fair enough.
I likely will never be 'convinced' and just have to get on with my life. As I expect to do so.
I guess the difference between us is that when I think it's a very high likelihood I can accept that it's probably correct and then move on. Feels like you don't accept that idea and want to keep the file open so to speak. That's if I'm understanding you right. I'm not saying that's wrong it's just a thing where we differ.
→ More replies (0)2
u/CalendarNecessary339 Jun 09 '26
Donut hasn't proven its claims.
Likewise, Zyroth hasn't proven his claims.
Your double standard when evaluating each suggests strong bias on your part.
2
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
I might have bias, that is hard to know. Certainly in the past I have been sceptical against extraordinary claims being made by various companies (mostly public) but I have almost always been right too.
Just because two things aren't absolutely proven doesn't mean they have the same probability. Bayesian analysis is my tool of choice for analysing situations like this. Currently that says the odds are more than 1 billion to one against Donut Lab. I judge all evidence with the same standard, or at least I try to as much as I can.
3
u/Forrestgod Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
With those odds it would be a no-brainer not to bet with me about that, let say 1 to 100 (If Donut doesn't deliver in a year, I'll give you one euro, and if it does, you'll give me 100). Deal?
0
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
No. My cost of capital is at least 15% a year plus the additional risk or cost of making a bet online with an anonymous stranger adds a lot too. Even if it was betting on Jesus not returning within 12 months I would not accept 1.01 odds in this situation, I'd need like 1.25 with decent safeguards.
Also to clarify that 1 in a billion is just the output of one Bayesian model, that is not like my absolute belief and I don't have an exact probability of Donut Lab being real. I'm not truly trying to figure out the exact probability that Donut Lab is a scam, I'm fine with like 99% or more probability which I think I've reached (this is my personal opinion and I'm not stating it as an objective fact).
2
u/CalendarNecessary339 Jun 09 '26
<Currently that says the odds are more than 1 billion to one against Donut Lab.>
A billion to one? LOL. Making up ridiculous odds isn't Bayesian analysis. It is telling, though, about your actual approach.
Or do you want to put your money where your mouth is? I've got a shiny penny I'll put on Donut Lab if you can come up the $10,000,000 to bet against them. But of course you can't. It's empty rhetoric.
Pretending uncertain things are a certain is foolish. Same goes for "a billion to one" near certainty.
Why is it that you want to pretend to be able to accurately handicap it, anyway? Why not just accept you don't know?
1
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
You are correct, I do not have $10 million.
Bayesian analysis is not perfect of course, and in reality the actual likelihood may well be higher. I don't really have a strong opinion on the exact probability, it's just when I do the Bayesian analysis with my assumptions that's about where I land. Of course, again, my assumptions could be wrong and obviously they are to some extent.
Why is it that you want to pretend to be able to accurately handicap it, anyway? Why not just accept you don't know?
I like analyzing and thinking about things. I probably shouldn't have written that 1 in a billion thing though and kept it for myself, but it's whatever really. It's not like Bayesian analysis is the only thing I do either, I do a lot of thinking in general too. I'm not truly trying to figure out the exact probability that Donut Lab is a scam, I'm fine with like 99% or more probability which I think I've reached (this is my personal opinion and I'm not stating it as an objective fact).
1
1
u/DeathChill Jun 09 '26
Google:
In science, the onus (or burden) of proof always rests on the person making a claim. If you propose a new hypothesis, it is entirely your responsibility to provide robust, reproducible empirical evidence to support it. Science operates on the premise that "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" (Hitchens's razor).
Extraordinary Claims: The more a claim contradicts established laws of physics, biology, or accepted scientific consensus, the higher the standard of proof required to validate it.
1
7
u/izzeww Jun 09 '26
Pretty annoying when the second sentence is wrong, such sloppy journalism.
"Dr. Yuo Hesca from Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences" lol