[crististm]

So you are suggesting that (from their behavior) people are oblivious to the low risk/high reward indicated by those figures?

Or maybe they don't like assuming risks based on other's bogus data when they already have their version of bogus data that is probably closer to reality?

[nothrabannosir]

I’m not really sure who “they” refers to (parent, GP, the company, the employee?), but let me take a step back here and illustrate my point more clearly. Maybe it will help. What I’m trying to say is: this isn’t a court of law, it’s a collaborative conversation. Someone posits a hypothesis based on some estimates. Others are invited to build on either of those: the estimates themselves , or the hypothesis built upon it.

This is a healthier way of looking at online discourse than constantly asking people to provide sources and citations. If they didn’t mention them, you can safely assume it’s a guess. It’s implicit. Don’t like the guess, great: help us improve. We’re all in this together. It’s not a battle of “who has the best opinion”.

Maybe that’s what you were trying to do, in which case I’m sorry for misunderstanding. I genuinely didn’t understand your comment, please forgive me :)

[crististm]

The figures discounts the downside too much for them to work.

I was on the receiving end of no-reply and didn't like it. But if I were to switch sides to a company, then after a couple of honest attempts at feedback I will most likely say fuck-off and send a stock letter instead.