4 ms·

Long piece that misreads and misunderstands both data and policy. Too bad.

• throw10920 5y ago
  Meanwhile, the above is a short comment that handwaves away the entire article without refuting any specific points or adding anything of value to the conversation whatsoever, while maintaining a condescending tone despite lack of any meaningful content.
  • skeeter2020 5y ago
    The same as yours, from a throw away account no less! To dig into the particulars is to acknowledge some form of legitimacy. The author is welcome to publish whatever they want, but we're under no obligation to accept any of it before discarding. The same rules go both ways.
    • 5co 5y ago
    • throw10920 5y ago
      > The same as yours False. GP comment and mine are not remotely comparable. GP comment has all of the failures I described - handwavy, lacking in value, condescending. Mine points out those specific problems with that comment - which the GP failed to do for the article - and avoids its specific mistakes. Yours, too, is handwavy, lacking in value, inaccurate, and anti-intellectual. Statements like: > To dig into the particulars is to acknowledge some form of legitimacy. and > we're under no obligation to accept any of it before discarding. ...are some of the most anti-intellectual, anti-discussion, close-minded, tribal content that I have ever seen on HN. Accusations of being a "throw away account" aren't even accurate - I made this account almost three months ago and have made hundreds of comments using it. This is my account. Unless you mean "anonymous" - in which case your account also applies. ...not that that observation would have been relevant to the discussion anyway. It does not matter whether I use a throwaway account, as long as I'm not breaking the HN rules or abusing the platform (which I try very hard to avoid).