Researcher: hey, that's odd ...

HN: N=1. Move along, nothing to see here!

To be fair, they're not exactly wrong. Worth repeating with N=10,100,... until we get a robust conclusion, but as it is, there's not much to go on in this one

Exactly. We're not researchers and many of us will internalize the finding without the proper confidence weighting. I wish reporting and HN had a higher standard for studies linked on the site with higher N and ideally some independent replications.

If the results is really interesting and novel then why aren't others racing to replicate it? Because it is not. Yet we're reporting it here with N=1.

Now another group of researchers have the opportunity to apply for a grant and propose new research on N=10

Why bother when N=1 is sufficient to solve P=NP?