I've been making that point for almost a year now but nobody listens.
I prefer to avoid the usage of that unless there's appeal to authority or I have to defend myself. This just seems like a slimmer version of r/btc, where they're attacking someone on a daily basis.First they say that a hardfork is no big deal, it just happens and then everyone will jump on to the new one. Then they say that maybe the blockchain can split in 2, but the old one will be quickly absorbed into the new one. Then ETC is alive for almost 6 months now... How quickly will that old blockchain be absorbed exactly?
Correct. In theory it was thought that the minor chain would quickly die out. Now we know that this doesn't necessarily have to be true (as demonstrated by ETC).It's this natural behaviour of things that I illustrate in this thread, whether you compare blockchains to cells, it is always the same. Once you break something, you cannot put it back together and glue it, it will never be the same.
Well, if you're looking at the whole picture then I agree with you.And yes look at ETH, looks like it will be hardforked again: 
https://twitter.com/jeffehh/status/784318008592183298
ETH seems like a joke when it comes to security nowadays. Seems like there's a lot of trouble waiting in their code. https://twitter.com/jeffehh/status/784318008592183298
This is so hilarious, I warned you people, once you create a hardfork, it will be a permanent perpetual hardfork, it wont be just a 1 time solution, it will be abused every single time.
Well, IMO doing a hard fork on Bitcoin just to increase the block size limit to X is horribly inefficient. The HF should be packed with things that are required, but can only be done with a HF (since we know these are not, and will not be a often thing with Bitcoin).