https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1602.01103/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43808654urn:hackerpapers:mention:1602.01103:43808654Sun, 27 Apr 2025 01:15:20 GMT<p>The researchers argue that the ends justify the unethical means because they believe their research is meaningful. I believe their experiment is flawed and lacks rigor. The delta metric is weak, they fail to control for bot-bot contamination, and the lack of statistical significance between generic and personalize models goes unquestioned. (Regarding that last point, not only were participants non-consenting, the researchers breached their privacy by building a personal profile on users based on their Reddit history and profiles.) Their research is not novel and shows weak correlations…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1602.01103/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>cs.SIhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20562096urn:hackerpapers:mention:1602.01103:20562096Tue, 30 Jul 2019 04:15:39 GMT<p>You’re not using effective arguments that will change someone’s point of view. I believe climate change is coming but trying to convince someone they should change because they are a Bad Person if they don’t change their ways, or that some unspecified type of fuckedness is looming, is not very successful. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01103v1.pdf</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1602.01103/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>cs.SIhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14197352urn:hackerpapers:mention:1602.01103:14197352Tue, 25 Apr 2017 19:53:20 GMT<p>Here&#x27;s a link to the scientific paper referenced in the article itself: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01103v1.pdf The key practical findings are in Section 9 on page 10.</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1602.01103/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>cs.SI