The null hypothesis is that there is no particular bias either for or against Apple on HN. The burden of proof is on you if you claim such a bias exists.
My counter-hypothesis is that HN has a pro-Apple bias on average simply because it's an American tech-focused site, and Apple is an American tech company. If everybody on HN were European or Asian, the average opinion might be less favorable. But it's just a hypothesis, one I'm not particlarly inclined to defend.
1. I’m not the one making the claim without evidence. You are.
2. I see absolutely no reason why the null hypothesis should be that a randomly selected social group would be unbiased about any particular issue by default. If you think about it for any length of time you should see that as implausible on its face.
3. You’ve just made up a weird ’counter hypothesis’ of pro Apple bias of your own and thrown it into the discussion for no apparent reason, while claiming not to be willing to defend it. That seems underhanded.
4. Why not just provide some evidence? I’m even more sure you’re wrong now that you’ve chosen to defend your position using these tactics, since it would be trivial for you to provide a link if you actually do remember such a discussion.
Sharlin|1 year ago
My counter-hypothesis is that HN has a pro-Apple bias on average simply because it's an American tech-focused site, and Apple is an American tech company. If everybody on HN were European or Asian, the average opinion might be less favorable. But it's just a hypothesis, one I'm not particlarly inclined to defend.
t888|1 year ago
2. I see absolutely no reason why the null hypothesis should be that a randomly selected social group would be unbiased about any particular issue by default. If you think about it for any length of time you should see that as implausible on its face.
3. You’ve just made up a weird ’counter hypothesis’ of pro Apple bias of your own and thrown it into the discussion for no apparent reason, while claiming not to be willing to defend it. That seems underhanded.
4. Why not just provide some evidence? I’m even more sure you’re wrong now that you’ve chosen to defend your position using these tactics, since it would be trivial for you to provide a link if you actually do remember such a discussion.