News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
[dead]
Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by gus_massa on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @06:28PM (#33901879)
I'm usually that guy, or at least I try to be. Some recommendations:

** Try to avoid insults like

fake quote> They are a bunch of liars _or_ morons

in spite you think they are a bunch of liars _and_ morons

** Avoid oneliners

Try to expand the explanation to 3 or 5 paragraph. Explain clearly what they did, what they claim and the difference. I try to use a ELI25 level (the reader has a technical degree, but not in the subject).

** Explain if it break some physics rule

Some articles make claims that break a physic rule. Some even give a wrong explanation about how they are somehow not bounded by the rule. Explain what they are breaking it. Try to give a high level explanation (like it breaks the conservation of energy) and a low level explanation (exactly in which part they are miscounting the energy).

** Expect to make a few mistakes.

I always make a mistake in a detail. Luckily most of the time someone will make make a comment fixing it. Acknowledge the error, thanks the comment, and remember it

** If it's bad enough it will be reposted :(

The good part, is that you can reuse your comment, with all the fix contributed by other users, and perhaps improve it a little.

Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by calvinmorrison on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @08:03PM (#33902732)
This is how you lose. You drown in a mountain of frivolous claims endlessly batting away BS while an OP just keeps on raining comments in new threads. You may feel better refuting something in 3 paragraphs but often a quick flick on the nose is an apt response.
Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by dylan604 on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @06:36PM (#33901958)
>Try to expand the explanation to 3 or 5 paragraph.

In the age of twitter, you expect paragraphs? Your comment is longer than a lot of news coverage, or at least, what passes as news coverage these days. You can try to be the change you want to see in the world, but this is like arguing with a fence post. As the audience becomes predominately younger, the trends of the times will come with them. You can "educate" till you're blue in the face, but being the internet, it's not going to listen.

Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by Agentlien on Thursday December 08, 2022 @04:38AM (#33906095)
This started as a discussion about calling bullshit on research in general, then veered into doing so on HN. Are you still talking about HN specifically or do you mean arguing on the internet in general?

Because in my experience a large portion of the HN crowd comes here for the civil and nuanced debate.

Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by gus_massa on Thursday December 08, 2022 @11:39AM (#33909918)
From an old comment by dang: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27047098

> To a first approximation, the internet is wrong about everything anyhow, so for sanity's sake we all need to learn how to let go. Believe me, I know that's not easy, but it's what we all have to do if we want a forum that doesn't suck.

It's about a personal insult in that thread, but I think it can be extrapolated to comment length. I agree that many news coverage are bad, or just a copy&paste of the press release. It's difficult to change the world, but at least we can try to have a nice discussion here. And part of the trick to get a nice discussion is to encourage comments of the correct length, not too short, not too long.

Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by ineedasername on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @05:22PM (#33901196)
I call bullshit on this comment. Lots of times when a study of some sort is posted the comments are filled with people calling bullshit on the study either due to sampling bias or too small of a sample or flawed experimental protocols.
Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by halpmeh on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @06:27PM (#33901868)
Don’t forget to include mice studies.
Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by dylan604 on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @06:36PM (#33901964)
Why? The mice are the ones running the experiments. You seem to be confused on the subject.
Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by antod on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @10:41PM (#33903881)
Well, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by bawolff on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @05:16PM (#33901121)
I don't think that's true.

Just yelling "bullshit" certainly is, and hn has a bit of a positivity bias, nonetheless, comments that say something is BS and explain why are usually reasonably well recieved.

Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by kergonath on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @05:34PM (#33901319)
> hn has a bit of a positivity bias

Interestingly, it also has a bit of negativity bias. This means that any story, however anodine or ground-breaking, will have:

- a group of people using some motivated reasoning to show how obviously terrible the thing is and how clever they are;

- a group of people arguing that the thing is the best since warm water and is going to solve everything (if only reality would behave).

This makes a lot of discussions simultaneously very interesting and utterly depressing.

Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by lamontcg on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @06:09PM (#33901720)
Problem is that due to the bullshit asymmetry principle, explaining why takes orders of magnitude more effort than producing the bullshit in the first place.

If you unconditionally accept bullshit but require an explanation in order to reject it, then you're going to wind up believing a lot of bullshit.

Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by bawolff on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @06:53PM (#33902117)
The same thing applies to people yelling bullshit. Its a lot easier to just falsely yell bullshit than it is to explain why something is not actually bullshit.

Generally i go with the imputus is on the person making the claim. I want the original person to back up their claim before i will care, but i also want anyone counterclaiming BS to also back up their claim before i care.

Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by lamontcg on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @08:50PM (#33903074)
In reality most people tend to back one side or the other based on their "gut" and if they've had a similar showerthought before and it backs up their own ego, while requiring extensive proof to change their mind.

Also in an ideal world you shouldn't just passively consume arguments on the internet, but do actual reading on the subject. Neither side on an internet debates actually owes you anything.

Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by bawolff on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @09:28PM (#33903334)
> Neither side on an internet debates actually owes you anything.

I disagree, the person trying to convince you of something always owes you an explanation.

Actual reading on something, while a good thing, never resolves an argument because you can't replace the person you are arguing with's premises with a generic premise from somewhere else and come to a reasonable conclusion.

Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by SV_BubbleTime on Thursday December 08, 2022 @02:06AM (#33905090)
> I disagree, the person trying to convince you of something always owes you an explanation.

Oh definitely not. I’m happy to make one post explaining my position… then walk away.

I discovered and internet superpower… it doesn’t bother me if you are wrong.

Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by bawolff on Thursday December 08, 2022 @04:45AM (#33906143)
I mean, i think we agree here. One post explaining your position is what i think is owed - if you gave zero explanation but still expected people to believe you (e.g. just yelled "bullshit" and walked away), i think that would be an unreasonable position.
Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by lamontcg on Thursday December 08, 2022 @02:00PM (#33911679)
> I disagree, the person trying to convince you of something always owes you an explanation.

Nope, nobody owes you anything on the Internet.

You shouldn't believe them, of course. But you need to have the tools to figure it out for yourself.

Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by anigbrowl on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @06:33PM (#33901934)
This is worthy of expansion into a blog post or similar discussion piece. Public discourse has long been weaponized for economic or political profit, but otherwise well-intentioned people keep falling for the same tricks over and over.
Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by mistermann on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @05:23PM (#33901203)
In my experience "are usually reasonably well received" is heavily influenced by the topic of discussion.
Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by plorkyeran on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @08:42PM (#33903010)
If anything I think HN has the opposite problem. Authoritative-sounding rebuttals to the submission tend to collect more upvotes than the quality of the rebuttal deserves. The key is to maintain a disinterested tone and write enough words that people just assume you must know what you're talking about.
Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by dang on Thursday December 08, 2022 @12:02AM (#33904381)
Calling bullshit and calling names are different things.

If a comment explains why something is bullshit in a way that readers can learn from, and is reasonably free of extraneous noise such as personal attacks, fulmination, and so on, that's a positive contribution. The trick is to (1) add correct, relevant information, and (2) avoid poisoning the ecosystem—like a healthy immune system that can go after pathogens without destroying normal cells.

Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by k2enemy on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @07:59PM (#33902695)
Clearly you haven't seen HN's reaction to any article about economics or psychology.
Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by calvinmorrison on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @08:02PM (#33902719)
I think people may realize that a lot of health science is closer to economics than math
Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by Semiapies on Wednesday December 07, 2022 @08:59PM (#33903137)
Or physics or cosmology.
Re:Publicity Stunt Fallout by astura on Thursday December 08, 2022 @08:13AM (#33907519)
Or food/nutrition.