You should only ask for sources if you attempted to find information and failed. All those things have been hackernews articles at some point, most recently the last one. Look it up.

I tried looking some up, but then realized the onus of proof is on the person making claims, not on people who are skeptical of people who make claims.

These are all well known factors to the intellectual development of humans.

There's not an onus of proof on someone who says the sky is blue or water is wet. We need a certain foundation of understanding to have productive conversations.

And we all have stuff to do. Suffice it to say, there is plenty of supporting evidence for the claims.

Ok, but "got any sources for that?" is a rather unsubstantive contribution, and then going on tilt about getting downvoted breaks the site guidelines outright. Would you mind raising the signal/noise ratio of what you post here?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Well your guidelines also mention 'assume good faith', which you and others failed to do:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

If they are not extraordinary claims, they don’t require extraordinary evidence. I’ve personally heard all those points before in some form.

I am with this guy, the above post is a stream of conjectures, half guesses and straight up misinformation. The fact that it’s at the top supports the article. Another noticeable trend is HN’s user base getting dumber and dumber over time.