>Well, guess what: you should have because the evidence actually shows that indeed, that 7% number was taken out of context.
It was taken out of context by some random blogger, whereas the gp was implying company executives were lying. My point that we should trust company executives over random internet commenters still holds.
That wasn't your point, and you are well aware of it. Why not simply apologize, say you got it wrong and move on? After all, you chose to believe the random blogger before. Besides that, believing execs of large US companies is a thing that I would not do without applying my critical thinking skills and a 7% figure is so ridiculously low that even if an exec said it it should still give you pause as to its correctness because even at face value that seems quite unbelievable.
Look, you chose to run with a figure that was nonsense at face value just because it suited your narrative. You then defended the figure and you made up a narrative about how executives should be believed over random commenters, which was - at best - a strawman. You then keep digging yourself into ever deeper holes without simply coming out and saying that you were wrong to believe the initial figure without any critical thought. The longer you keep this up the more silly you look.
> "Given the threat of securities fraud lawsuits, I'm liable to believe them over some random commenter casting doubt with zero evidence."
That was your statement, but - surprise - no exec made the claim that you chose to believe. And if you had thought for 10 seconds you'd have realized that no such claim could have been made because the figure is clearly non-sensical. Oh, and US execs fairly routinely lie, both in court and outside of it. The fact that they get away with it is not proof that they're not doing it.
>Look, you chose to run with a figure that was nonsense at face value just because it suited your narrative. You then defended the figure and you made up a narrative about how executives should be believed over random commenters, which was - at best - a strawman. You then keep digging yourself into ever deeper holes without simply coming out and saying that you were wrong to believe the initial figure without any critical thought. The longer you keep this up the more silly you look.
I suggest you read over the comment chain more carefully and note the authors. I jumped in at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45405359 and was specifically objecting to the part of the comment that was claiming the executive was lying with no evidence. I made no such claims or arguments based on the 7% figure.
It was taken out of context by some random blogger, whereas the gp was implying company executives were lying. My point that we should trust company executives over random internet commenters still holds.