> Also I looked at their report and it's cherry picked and very carefully worded, with several sloppy arguments, often contradicting themselves in the matter of a few sentences. Typical stuff for them.
I don't see anything wrong with their methodology, could point those out for me?
Sorry I will not. It's hilariously bad. Riddled with it. I've seen dozens of flaws with just a few paragraphs. It's very very carefully worded and has gaping statistical flaws and false conclusions. Even starting with the piece's title and 1st paragraph you should be able to see the propaganda shell game start shuffling around. I made my comment more for the sake of other readers of HN. Instead I'll offer it as a geeky intellectual challenge for yourself to take a fresh look at their report with a critical eye. Once you can spot all the "fnords" in one piece of a propaganda you'll get better at seeing it elsewhere as well. :)
You keep repeating the ad hominem but there's not much to your critique. Actually, you didn't offer a single valid argument and seem much more biased than the report, I don't think HN is benefiting.
I don't see anything wrong with their methodology, could point those out for me?