Hacker News Reader

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.

For starters, the question they posed and GP posted a source for benefits from having a concrete answer.

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'.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com