Obviously, "who becomes a journalist in this age" does not translate to "every person who is alive now who has ever been a journalist".
I'm not sure if your error lies in parsing colloquial English, or in basic statistics. Either way, I think you have fully illustrated the commenter's point.
Journalists are not reliably selected for, or demonstrative of, comprehension or accuracy.
This is dumb trying to call others dumb. This argument is not just inhumane it’s also wrong. The average of something assumed does not negate a real data point. If you did even bit of data science you’d know that. But just another HNer calling someone dumb while confidently wrong. And ironic calling others dumb because of it. So think on that.
Maybe Christmas just leaves the worst on HN … statistically.
(You can’t engagement logically technically or even correctly here and keep
Spouting others are wrong. Think hard on how poorly you comprehension here is even when explained why you are
Wrong.)
Points have been illustrated contradicting the statement. No points have been made supporting it.
Your argument boils down to “all x is bad is valid by default and all Ys that contradict are inherently ‘statistically invalid’”. Do you not get how horribly dumb your logic is?
By this logic I could state all HNErs posting on Christmas are idiots and wrong by default. This of course can’t by contradicted by any statement you make because you are just a data point of one and therefore invalid. Also the original point is supported with exactly 0 data points so in actuality data point of 1 > 0. So my guy. Jesus. Learn stats. Or anything.
