That's why I often ask for "Source?" — because sometimes people seem to make up numbers. However, whenever I do this, I receive a large number of downvotes. Maybe it's not common on HN to back up claims with sources.

▲

jannyfer 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There is another possibility. “Source?” is a low effort comment, but GP’s is not.

▲

randomtoast 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective. Your comment raises an interesting point, and I would genuinely like to understand it more thoroughly.

Would you mind clarifying what source or reference you are relying on for that statement? I am asking in the spirit of constructive dialogue, not to challenge you, but to better understand the foundation of your view. If there is a specific study, report, dataset, or publication that informed your conclusion, I would be grateful if you could point me toward it.

Having access to the underlying source would help ensure that the discussion remains grounded in verifiable information and would allow others, including myself, to review the context and methodology behind the claim. That, in turn, would make the exchange more substantive and productive.

Thank you in advance for any clarification you can provide.

	▲	jonas21 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is also a low effort comment, despite the word count. In contrast, shubhamjain found Meta's earnings release for the specified time period, quoted numbers that appear to contradict the claim, and provided a link to the release. This adds to the conversation, while a comment that says "Source?" or a few paragraphs that can be reduced to "Source?" do not.
	▲	rohin15 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		What benefit do you gain by having an llm write comments on HN? I don't get it.
	▲	koakuma-chan 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Too brief, minus 10 marks.

▲

Taek 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's more likely your attitude rather than your quest for verification that gets you downvotes.

▲

randomtoast 4 hours ago | parent [-]

My intentions are sincere, maybe it is the wording.

▲

brynnbee 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I would imagine it's more you're being skeptical of something that is unpopular to be skeptical about. It's like someone saying climate change is impacting our planet, and then asking "source?" in response.

	▲	randomtoast 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		No, that's not correct. I ask "Source?" when someone makes a claim that goes against popular belief, such as: "climate change is not impacting our planet." I do think "Source?" is generally considered a low-effort response, so it's the wording I guess, not the context.
	▲	kolbe 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Except he was skeptical about Meta's effective tax rate being 3%. Why are you making up scenarios that aren't real to justify hurting him?