I posted links from respectable publications - the WSJ included - supporting my comment.
It’s been well known for decades that almost everyone sucks at “analyzing stocks” using any methodology.
No. Which is in the site docs as well:
When something isn't good, you needn't pretend that it is, but don't be gratuitously negative.
But more importantly, what makes your comment shallow is not the ostensible depth and heft of your links, it's that it shows little evidence of having looked at the thing being showhn - it's a thread-invariant trope.
If someone does a Show HN for a Twitter for pets you are not required to applaud it, instinctively or otherwise, but you are asked to not reflexively dismiss it in thread comments. Critique is fair game, of course.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
My negativity wasn’t “gratuitous”. His tool was meant to predict stock price. Every reputable article shows that kind of analysis is foolhardy- or as the WSJ put it - about as good as blind monkeys