zlacker

Certainly a dismissal but at this point it seems rather disingenuous to call it low-effort and shallow.

(Also, please consider this friendly piece of advice: check yourself!)

>>lcnPyl+(OP)
The follow-up comment is not low-effort and shallow, the original one was.

Not sure why OP considers themselves to have been "baited" when the conversation IMHO has been greatly improved by them substantiating their criticism (which may have its merit).

>>Tainno+Ua
Fair points!

The comment I responded to was seeming to attribute those to OP's later comments, which would be unfair. The dismissal of the dismissal still comes across as low-effort and shallow.

>>lcnPyl+lh
I think their point was more that, after having obtained the preprint, they still weren't able to produce anything specific to the article, which demonstrates that their dismissal was low effort and unfair (and I think it's fair to call on them to admit that). The amount of effort required to dig into the methodology is high (and it's understandable if one doesn't want to spend their leisure time that way), but that's exactly why we can't go around spreading bullshit; it's so simple to do and takes so much effort to remediate, and often the damage is already done.

As always, it's better to go to another thread if a topic doesn't interest you, rather than disrespect people's time & energy by attacking the validity of the topic itself.

>>maxbon+e31
I dunno, I guess we just disagree. By the time I made my comment, we had this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32942901 I think neither that comment, nor the commenter's self-reply should be considered lacking effort. (Arguably the attitude that comes across when they complain about being "baited" isn't great, but their intended meaning seems fine.)

I do not take offense to the response calling out OP's first comment as low-effort and shallow because it was both of those things. I just can't see the comment I responded to as defensible with such a strong combination of irony and infelicity.