Comment by throwworhtthrow
5 months ago
I looked at the source blog post and decided it was pretty shoddy. I kind of agree that a reasonable person would doubt the veracity of this post, not just for the reasons loeg mentioned, but because the presented "evidence" is a single cherry-pick from data with lots of inherent variance.
I think it's valid criticism to say that you should have taken a closer look before submitting, and concluded that it was too junky for HN. In which case the flagging is appropriate.
Can you share your analysis of the data? Other commenters have included details. I think we all would be interested in more than vague value judgments that you took a look, didn't like it and therefore tried to flag to repress discussion of it
> and therefore tried to flag to repress discussion of it
nice mind reading skills over there
there are multiple comments in here calling for people to flag this thread. AND IT WORKED. this was ripped off the front page yesterday.
the idea we can't discuss it is the most scandalous of all, IMO, especially given we are just bunch of nerds discussing shit.