Hacker News Reader

The claim is anecdotal and thus insufficient for statistical analysis, as expressed by the previous response. What did they miss exactly?

The claim that statistics are flawed is not something you can respond to with by saying that the statistics say otherwise.

But the claim specifically, was that the statistics are flawed NOW with an implication that they were not flawed before.

Not sure you can do much with that in a discussion/argument when there is no proof of that provided other than a personal anecdote.

Edit: Actually maybe I misread it, they are saying its always been flawed. But still the general point of the thread still holds I think.