The only thing I can remember is this person who bragged about buying few domain-names and just waiting them to go up in price. I can almost understand companies issuing SSL certs selling domains, or having some services along those domains.
But in this instance it was a national domain, meaning the state handled the top-level domain and all infrastructure and work related to keeping tabs on the domain names. What they did was buy general words when they were cheap and popular, and just sat on the domain name for all this time. They still haven’t done fuck all with any of them, just waiting someone else to go through with the business plan they thought for five seconds some decade ago, and then extort that company for money.
So taking limited resources as a speculative investment is the only thing. Generally any form of investment where you expect to extract money for doing absolutely nothing except having an idea and paying some of your pre-existing money to hoard it.
You aren’t even inventing an idea at that point. Infact, you are relying on the idea being obvious enough that someone in the future will actually do something along those lines. It’s not an innovation. Absolutely nothing happened outside your own head until you swooped in to charge a fee on someone that actually did something.
Logical fallacies don’t necessarily disagree with facts. While the most common examples are simply unsupported statements that sound supported, very often we don’t have the luxury of working with clearly factual statements as a basis.
All rhetoric is at the end of the day a fallacy, as the truth of the matter is independent on how it is argued. Yet we don’t consider all rhetoric invalid, because we can’t just chain factual statements in real debates. Leaps of logic are universally accepted, common knowledge is shared without any proof, and reasonable assumptions made left and right.
In fact one persons valid rhetoric is another persons fallacy. If the common knowledge was infact not shared, or an assumption not accepted, the leap in logic is a fallacy.
I would try to focus less on lists of fallacies or cognitive biases and more on natural logic. Learn how to make idealised proofs, and through that learn to identify what is constantly assumed in everyday discussions. The fallacies itself don’t matter, what matters is spotting leaps in logic and why it feels like a leap in logic to you.
After all, very often authoritive figures do tell the truth, and both sides of the debate agree on general values without stating them. If someone starts questioning NASA or declares they actually want more people to live in poverty, they did infact spot very real logical fallacies in the debate, but at the same time those fallacies only exist from their point of view, and others might not care to argue without such unstated common ground.