[medellin]

I agree it should be broken down better or they are falling into the same simple thinking that most commenters online have.

[iamthirsty]

> they are falling into the same simple thinking that most commenters online have.

Please be aware that your comment has been marked by the API as 'toxic' due to an overt generalized assumption.

/s

[spencerflem]

I agree, and non-sarcastically. The GP comment is saying that not only are the researchers are dumb but that most internet commenters (not them) are too.

This doesn't make for a good discussion. There's no easy way to respond to this other than being defensive or adding more snark. It is a discussion ender and if all hackernews comments were like this I would leave the site.

[mistermann]

> This doesn't make for a good discussion.

What if it is objectively true?

Is there some magic dust that renders humans necessarily good/smart, or might it be possible that you are grading on a curve, as you have been trained to do by humans?

If there are problems and people refuse to even acknowledge them let alone address them, they deserve what they get imho.

I imagine a lot of innocent people get caught up in the harm, but how would one determine who is objectively innocent?

[unclebucknasty]

>There's no easy way to respond to this other than being defensive or adding more snark

Your comment is itself an example of how to respond to this without being defensive or snarky.

[spencerflem]

Thanks, I really do try.