[nomel]

> You could also simply have taken the quote you were responding to and run it through a few LLMs to acquire those examples.

Wasn't me, but probably because this was unnecessary and rude. An example, or a link, when a claim is made, is always nice, turns a hollow claim into something informative. Better signal to noise is nice.

[_doctor_love]

That’s funny.

I find it pretty rude to ask a question on a fairly well-documented historical topic that you could also very easily have found out with a simple Google search. Back in the day, we used to reply to people, “Let me Google that for you,” when someone asked such a low-effort question.

Your original reply strongly indicated that you were skeptical and questioning the user’s claim. There is a very large body of historical research documenting all of these things.

[nomel]

> Your original reply strongly indicated that you were skeptical and questioning the user’s claim.

No, I was honestly genuinely interested. This is foreign to me and thought there might be an interesting starting point. You should read comments with a charitable interpretation.

You should check out the HN comment guidelines [1], which the mods take seriously.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[YeGoblynQueenne]

This is a conversation forum, so it's natural for people to ask questions of each other. Sure, we could, in principle, ask Google, or ChatGPT for everything, but then why have an online conversation at all?

[gnabgib]

nomel couldn't have downvoted you (HN constraint), stop the attack. LMGTFY has a terrible rep on HN (I'd link a search, but you can easily find).

[_doctor_love]

I think my definition and your definition of what constitutes an attack are fairly different. I’m offering feedback, not an attack.