4 ms·
> it is also true that HN commenters can be quite good at spotting math errors They can be quite good at making that claim, which is cheap. And others like to
by mmooss 6mo ago
> it is also true that HN commenters can be quite good at spotting math errors
They can be quite good at making that claim, which is cheap. And others like to rally around it - just like the comments rejecting most OPs that make their way to the top.
I'd need to see evidence that the claims are actually valid. Most similar HN take-downs, for fields I have knowledge of, are pretty poor.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 6mo ago> I'd need to see evidence that the claims are actually valid. This would indeed be best, no argument here. But this comment thread was more about whether, without evidence, that automatically dismissing a comment because it was on HN or automatically accepting a claim because it was from 'stanford researchers' was ok.
- mmooss 6mo agoI wouldn't automatically accept the researcher's claim, but for a HN quick-take critique the burden of establishing legitimacy is on the commenter.