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.

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.

What benefit do you gain by having an llm write comments on HN? I don't get it.

Too brief, minus 10 marks.