I came to the comments first assuming there'd be p-hacking (a broad amount of parameters would be tested trying to find some that have "statistical significance

I came to the comments first assuming there'd be p-hacking (a broad amount of parameters would be tested trying to find some that have "statistical significance", which is bogus and commonly referred as p-hacking). I am a bit tired of seeing very promising articles, becoming hopeful then just to read HN comments on why it's ridiculously flawed (I do get HN tends to be negative, but in scientific articles in a good way, I prefer no-results that fake positive hopes). Very happy to see your comment and I def agree, if looking for specifically not-x and found x it also increases my trust in an article A LOT.