[arghwhat]

There is also no data to back up the opposite assertion. It would be rather surprising to see comments on HN based on hard statistical data - an implicit "IMO" prefix makes sense to apply in most human discussions.

> That does not mean that every non-HN user...

Not every - but I do believe it is still the majority. There are a lot of people out there, and the knowledge required to make the aforementioned OS choice is niche.

This is not implying stupidity, just that there are many trades and interests out there, and subscribing to ours specifically is not a given.

[nullindividual]

> There is also no data to back up the opposite assertion.

Which is why I made no assertion with a percentage.

> but I do believe it is still the majority

What makes you believe that? Thousands of data points? Hundreds? Tens? The handful of people around you? Certainly not statistics.

[arghwhat]

You are indeed making the opposite assertion by implying the statement is false, hypocritically with no information to back it up. By your standards, your counter is entirely invalid. "I do not know" is how you avoid making an assertion.

Ridiculous standards aside, I find it an extremely reasonable to assert that given more than 7 billion people across vast areas, interests, ideologies and jobs, and given the vast hi.an knowledge, expertise and culture, that any particular interest or knowledge is only shared by a small subset.

[kelnos]

> You are indeed making the opposite assertion by implying the statement is false

That's not at all what they said. All they're saying -- correctly -- is that you are asserting some sort of magnitude ("majority") without any data to back it up.

I would guess, though, from my personal experience, that you are probably right that a majority of people just get whatever laptop with whatever OS they're used to because that's what their parents/school/employer gave them to use, and when it's time for a new machine, they just get whatever they had before. But I don't think this is a very large majority.

> I find it an extremely reasonable to assert that given more than 7 billion people [...] that any particular interest or knowledge is only shared by a small subset.

Probably true, but also remember that OS choice isn't always driven by interest. A macOS user may get frustrated with the state of gaming on the Mac, and decide to switch to Windows. Or a Windows user might really want or need to use an application only available on macOS (though I expect this sort of thing doesn't happen as often anymore, since more and more of people's computer use ends up being through a web browser). A Windows user might also buy an iPhone or iPad and get into the Apple ecosystem enough that they decide to switch to macOS.

Certainly some people who do switch OSes don't do so because they've made an independent choice; they do so because they switch employers, and something else is the only thing available, or a friend evangelizes another OS to them to the point they want to give it a try, and end up liking it.

Regardless, many people these days don't even have a laptop or desktop computer, and do all their computing on their phone or tablet. I think that 7 billion number gets a lot smaller when you consider that. (Also, as an aside, the current world population is estimated to be a bit over 8 billion now, not 7.)

[arghwhat]

The problem with making unreasonable demands for data in response to casual discussions is that it is usually done when the person strongly disagrees with the statement. For that reason, it is implicitly a counter argument, and a hypocritical one: "Your opinion differs from mine, so you must provide data to back up yours!". None of the available options can be considered default, so any outcome is equally "grand" and subject to same requirements. Opposing without having a standpoint could happen in a peer review for a paper, but that is not what this is.

Your response is more reasonable, and is also more out in the open about the alternate belief (of course equally without data). Nothing wrong with disagreeing - only about making up unbalanced burdens of proof in casual discussions.