[cipheredStones]

Did you just arrive from Mars to judge our discourse norms?

It's completely typical to expect someone who makes a surprising factual claim to back it up with evidence. You're talking to them because you think they might know something you don't, and be able to point to how they know it - or they might not, and them offering weak or non-existent evidence would show that.

[9rx]

> It's completely typical to expect someone who makes a surprising factual claim to back it up with evidence.

A citation does not necessarily provide evidence, it only guarantees the words of a third-party. A third-party can spout complete nonsense as well as anyone else. The request ultimately serves to appeal to a flawed assumption that a third-party's words are more valuable than the words of who you are speaking to.

Which also incorrectly assumes there is someone else's words to even draw from. HN is well known for attracting experts in their field. It could have very well been that the parent commenter is the only person who knows anything about the subject. There may not be anyone else. Even if there was, to dismiss his knowledge as the hypothetical leading expert to hear from some other random nobody doesn't make sense.

But, to give the benefit of the doubt, if we assume there is a greater subject matter expert who can give you better words than the parent to describe the knowledge you seek: What purpose does the middleman serve? Why not talk directly with the expert? You are going to get a lot more out of it. The middleman, if not a valuable party to the subject, isn't going to relay what is most useful if for no other reason than because he doesn't know what is useful. A citation remains pointless.

> You're talking to them because you think they might know something you don't

Of course. Which, again, questions why you would want to defer to a third-party? If you have good reason to believe someone knows something you don't, why wouldn't you want to hear it from them directly in their own words? As I said before, in this case elaboration is what would be valuable. A citation is not. A citation is completely useless here. While citations do have a place, asking for a citation in the middle of a conversation is a fallacious device.

[kazinator]

> Which also incorrectly assumes there is someone else's words to even draw from.

The claim in question is that there is a prevalence of hyper-mobility among programmers.

That can only be backed by data. Data gathered from a large number of people. Even if we suppose that the claim is the result of a solo research effort --- one person did all the data gathering and analysis --- and that that solo researcher is the very person making the comment on hacker news, there are still other words that can be referenced. They are not another person's words, but that same researcher's words hosted elsewhere, giving interesting details about the research!!!

The comment, whether we believe it or not, simply contains insufficient detail to someone interested.

Don't you understand?

Indeed, it's as if you came from space to dictate alien discourse protocols to humans.

[9rx]

> That can only be backed by data.

Okay. But the request was for citation, not data around mobility. A request for the latter would at least carry something, albeit unless you are an expert yourself you likely won't be able to take much from it, but that is not what was requested. Still, I posit that elaboration is the better approach. If the person is, in fact, an expert in the subject they may have better ways of broaching the subject with you than dumping raws value upon you. And if dumping raw data is truly the best they can offer, that is still apt to be where they end up in their elaboration anyway, so in the worst case you haven't lost anything. Demanding that you know the best way to continue the conversation when it is you without the requisite knowledge seems foolhardy.

> there are still other words that can be referenced

Why reference when he can reiterate his own words, if there is merit in retelling what he has already told before? HN is not a Wiki trying to index historical knowledge, it is decidedly a link aggregator combined with discussion forum, with the latter being the feature that is relevant to the context. Further, this seems to imply that you don't trust the words on HN, but if that is the case why bother with HN at all? There is no utility if nothing can be taken from the words posted here.

> Indeed, it's as if you came from space to dictate alien discourse protocols to humans.

I have never seen this behaviour outside of Reddit (and where Reddit memes have leaked into HN). Humans having a discussion usually talk to each other in the present, not go back and forth pointing to quotes written in the past and likely written by a third-party. Even from my alien vantage point I recognize that as something humans would find strange. What makes you think it is human protocol?

[slyall]

Just an hour ago read somebody say that the California fires were caused by a combination of 5G and coronal mass ejections.

At the time I dismissed his words is not being supported by scientists or other authorities but in future I will remember your wisdom that it is "a flawed assumption that a third-party's words are more valuable than the words of who you are speaking to."

[9rx]

> "I dismissed his words" ... "you are speaking to"

Which is it? Did you dismiss him or did you speak to him? If you dismissed him as you claim, the quote, even ignoring how it is taken out of context, doesn't work. It explicitly refers to where there is an exchange happening.