Imagine a HN link to a paper which summarizes various other studies for the causes of failures in auto navigation systems. Dozens of studies are cited, which covers areas such as incomplete testing due to schedule pressures, not adhering to coding guidelines for safety, lack of redundancy or self checking mechanisms, hardware failure, unanticipated overruns of scheduler time budgets due to a confluence of exceptions, etc.

Next, imagine someone leaves a comment which leaves the impression they didn't read the paper, only the title, and said, "Maybe they use too many GOTOs."

Finally, imagine someone saying, "Not sure why you are getting downvoted, this is a good point."

I downvoted because by the HN guidelines comments should try to be curious and interesting and because “Please don't post shallow dismissals”.

The abstract mentions that diet affects gut microbiome and that gut microbiome has a “shaping effect” on psychiatric disorders:

> “A growing body of literature shows that the gut microbiome plays a shaping role in a variety of psychiatric disorders, including major depressive disorder (MDD). In this review, the interplay between the microbiome and MDD is discussed in three facets. First, we discuss factors that affect the onset/development of MDD that also greatly impinge on the composition of the gut microbiota—especially diet and stressful life events.”

That is, the comment is low effort, and dismissive, and unsubstantiated speculation. Are we supposed to conclude that “depressed people eat junk food” is all there is to it? Citation requested. Are they just saying “depressed people eat junk food”? Boring. Are they saying “maybe depressed people eat junk food”? Is there a reason to have “maybe” there? Might they not?

Causality, and the reason they think it could be diet->mood instead of the other way around, is discussed in the original link, so this comment adds nothing and in fact subtracts by being less informed than the link itself.

Take a guess.