While I believe you are trying to make a good faith insight porn comment and I don’t think you should be (inevitably) downvoted, I am skeptical of the methods of the “rather popular podcast” that led them to make such a claim.
Also, I’m not sure if it’s the gotcha you think it is. If I were you, I would take a long hard look at claims like these, and how even when they are not true, well, an item that says “So and so claim turns out to be not true” is itself propagating the untrue claim. It will illuminate for you the true way Reddit is quite toxic, and why among many reasons content moderation and publishing are hard.
I didn't find it gentlemanly to name names here, and wanted to let my comment be developed independently, but since my comment is already flagged, I suppose i'll make it clear the source and the weight of the research that I'm simply referencing. This was saidin the all-in-podcast. This was during episode 135, at the 23:15 mark. The show has a guide so it should be findable.
I believe hosts do research and in fact, have VC minions (paid staff) during the show pulling the data to demonstrate how the calc was derived.
(I'm actually quite surprised this is not immediately known, as I thought the podcast audience was primarily HN ..)
Also, sibling comment added his own independent analysis
Also, I’m not sure if it’s the gotcha you think it is. If I were you, I would take a long hard look at claims like these, and how even when they are not true, well, an item that says “So and so claim turns out to be not true” is itself propagating the untrue claim. It will illuminate for you the true way Reddit is quite toxic, and why among many reasons content moderation and publishing are hard.