4 ms·

Are you ok? If you click the link, you will find out exactly how the dataset was gathered. I have a hard time believing that a person capable of navigating to H

by prvit 4y ago

Are you ok? If you click the link, you will find out exactly how the dataset was gathered. I have a hard time believing that a person capable of navigating to HN and producing somewhat coherent sentences is too stupid to figure this out.

kazinator 4y ago
That particular figure is from a referenced paper by a R. G. Poulos (at al), whose data comes from self-reporting. "This paper examines self-reported prospectively collected data from 2038 adult transport and recreational cyclists from New South Wales (Australia) to determine exposure-based incident crash and injury rates." That's just silly nonsense.
- prvit 4y ago
  ok? It’s not like someone tried to mislead you about the source of that figure, it was clearly stated. Why are you pretending to be stupid? You could just jump straight to criticizing the dataset instead of pretending to not know how they could reach that figure.
michaelmrose 4y ago
This is not an acceptable way to speak here. When you find yourself adding emotional content including insults before your statements take a breath and delete everything but the factual statements. For example you could have simply said "If you click the link, you will find out exactly how the dataset was gathered" It would have added the same value without degrading the conversation or being rude. Thank you.
- prvit 4y ago
  Come on, it’s clear that kazinator is deliberately trolling by pretending to be stupid. Nothing wrong with calling them out on that.
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    That is not clear at all. They might simply disagree with the methodology and that is a legit topic to discuss. More importantly if you actually think he is trolling the best route to go is to disengage and downvote. This doesn't distract from the discussion or degrade the discussion into name calling. Also hacker news rules are to respond to the most charitable interpretation of the users point. Assume they are disagreeing in good faith and engage with the topic or disengage and down vote if you feel the users contribution is negative.
    - prvit 4y ago
      > They might simply disagree with the methodology and that is a legit topic to discuss Sure, but ignoring a clear explanation of the methodology isn’t. > Also hacker news rules are to respond to the most charitable interpretation of the users point The most charitable interpretation is indeed that he’s trolling and not stupid.

by prvit 4y ago

kazinator 4y ago

That particular figure is from a referenced paper by a R. G. Poulos (at al), whose data comes from self-reporting. "This paper examines self-reported prospectively collected data from 2038 adult transport and recreational cyclists from New South Wales (Australia) to determine exposure-based incident crash and injury rates." That's just silly nonsense.

prvit 4y ago
ok? It’s not like someone tried to mislead you about the source of that figure, it was clearly stated. Why are you pretending to be stupid? You could just jump straight to criticizing the dataset instead of pretending to not know how they could reach that figure.

michaelmrose 4y ago

This is not an acceptable way to speak here. When you find yourself adding emotional content including insults before your statements take a breath and delete everything but the factual statements. For example you could have simply said "If you click the link, you will find out exactly how the dataset was gathered" It would have added the same value without degrading the conversation or being rude. Thank you.

prvit 4y ago
Come on, it’s clear that kazinator is deliberately trolling by pretending to be stupid. Nothing wrong with calling them out on that.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  That is not clear at all. They might simply disagree with the methodology and that is a legit topic to discuss. More importantly if you actually think he is trolling the best route to go is to disengage and downvote. This doesn't distract from the discussion or degrade the discussion into name calling. Also hacker news rules are to respond to the most charitable interpretation of the users point. Assume they are disagreeing in good faith and engage with the topic or disengage and down vote if you feel the users contribution is negative.
  - prvit 4y ago
    > They might simply disagree with the methodology and that is a legit topic to discuss Sure, but ignoring a clear explanation of the methodology isn’t. > Also hacker news rules are to respond to the most charitable interpretation of the users point The most charitable interpretation is indeed that he’s trolling and not stupid.