HN doesn't "request scientific rigour". If you imagine something like that, of course you're going to find reams of counterexamples. That's not because other people are being inconsistent, it's because you imagined something untrue.

The "piece of crap blogpost" details their data and methodology and gives a link to the published paper that the "piece of crab blogpost" is about.

Because you aren't attacking data or methodology I have to assume your post reflects more issues you are struggling with than issues raised by the paper. Of course, I'm sure the data and methodology have flaws or need further research. It's not within my skillset to judge it. But these things are almost never perfect or the end all.

https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2014.0538

Google, Uber, Coinbase, Basecamp, HN's own pg - they were all in news because of racism and/or sexism.