4 ms·

Because its not the readers job to support a writers position.

david-gpu 2y ago
Criticizing that the article I posted doesn't contain rates is understandable. Nevertheless, in the same amount of time that it took them to write a shallow dismissal they could have googled the raw data and shared a link. They didn't provide any sources whatsoever for their own claims.
- webstrand 2y ago
  Jumping down the rabbit hole of "find a statistic X via google" takes a lot of motivation, and that's also a limited resource. Just because that information was easy to find this time, doesn't mean it is every time. Often when I go looking for statistics on various population level things, I have to do a lot of work to find and massage it into the form I was looking for.
- kriops 2y ago
  What part of their claim specifically requires (or would even benefit from) a source? As far as I am concerned you are conceding the argument by doubling down here. And in spite of potentially being right.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    For starters, the question they posed and GP posted a source for benefits from having a concrete answer.
    - kriops 2y ago
      See, the basic presumption needs to be that random statements are false, otherwise you would have to disprove an infinite amount of random statements t arrive at the truth. Hence the asymetric requirements, and why David simply concedes the argument by not sourcing his statements, and why his opponent can simply (until some form of supporting evidence is provided) can reply with a simple 'no'.
      - itishappy 2y ago
        Hard disagree. Do these arguments not apply to the conjecture by Avalys? Why is a shallow rebuttal backed by "it wouldn't be surprising" and anecdotes more credible than the sourced response? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42203613#42204292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42203613#42204292
- avalys 2y ago
  For what it’s worth - my comment was more about my frustration over what a useless article it was and how low our journalistic standards and expectations are that no one involved in writing or editing it bothered to ask the very obvious questions I posed - rather than about the actual topic of pedestrian deaths and crash testing.

Criticizing that the article I posted doesn't contain rates is understandable. Nevertheless, in the same amount of time that it took them to write a shallow dismissal they could have googled the raw data and shared a link. They didn't provide any sources whatsoever for their own claims.

webstrand 2y ago
Jumping down the rabbit hole of "find a statistic X via google" takes a lot of motivation, and that's also a limited resource. Just because that information was easy to find this time, doesn't mean it is every time. Often when I go looking for statistics on various population level things, I have to do a lot of work to find and massage it into the form I was looking for.
kriops 2y ago
What part of their claim specifically requires (or would even benefit from) a source? As far as I am concerned you are conceding the argument by doubling down here. And in spite of potentially being right.
- itishappy 2y ago
  For starters, the question they posed and GP posted a source for benefits from having a concrete answer.
  - kriops 2y ago
    See, the basic presumption needs to be that random statements are false, otherwise you would have to disprove an infinite amount of random statements t arrive at the truth. Hence the asymetric requirements, and why David simply concedes the argument by not sourcing his statements, and why his opponent can simply (until some form of supporting evidence is provided) can reply with a simple 'no'.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      Hard disagree. Do these arguments not apply to the conjecture by Avalys? Why is a shallow rebuttal backed by "it wouldn't be surprising" and anecdotes more credible than the sourced response? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42203613#42204292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42203613#42204292
avalys 2y ago
For what it’s worth - my comment was more about my frustration over what a useless article it was and how low our journalistic standards and expectations are that no one involved in writing or editing it bothered to ask the very obvious questions I posed - rather than about the actual topic of pedestrian deaths and crash testing.