If it wasn’t clear enough from my post, I’m implying you are reading too much into the literal meaning of the age part of the comment. As the HN guidelines say, we should be trying to take the most generous interpretation possible.

> I’m implying you are reading too much into the literal meaning of the age part of the comment.

I'm not. In fact my previous comment would still be valid if the line "What does age have to do with it?" were omitted. The important point is that the anecdotal observations do not apply universally.

>The important point is that the anecdotal observations do not apply universally.

We are probably reading their comment somewhat differently. Because of the way they couched their statement as rooted in their personal experience, I assumed their were implying it was anecdotal and obviously not a generalizable, objective truth.

> I assumed their were implying it was anecdotal and obviously not a generalizable, objective truth.

"I think I'm old enough now to confidently say that, yes: Happiness really does start from within."

If I had said, "I've lived in enough places to conclude that southern California is really the best place" would you read that as me making a universal claim or simply relaying my subjective determination?

As I already stated, I read the OP as if the latter. Despite the often pedantic nature of HN, there's a lot of room for nuance and interpretation human communication.

That depends. If you had prefaced your remarks in the following way, then I would read it as making a universal claim.

"Bluntly, every person I know who's expressed these kinds of sentiments is guilty of the same mistake: [living outside southern California]."