3 ms·
The article's headline states, "Why a scientist killed a bird that hadn’t been seen in 50 years" and waits until well into the article to mention, "Filardi stre
by jccalhoun 11y ago
The article's headline states, "Why a scientist killed a bird that hadn’t been seen in 50 years" and waits until well into the article to mention, "Filardi stressed that, among Guadalcanal locals, the bird is known to be 'unremarkably common.'"
In this way, this article, which is trying to explain why the bird was killed, seems to recreate the problems that led to people being mad in the first place: giving the impression that this is a rare bird that no one had seen in 50 years and burying the fact that this isn't true. The majority of this article makes it seem like this was a bird that no one had seen in years when that simply isn't the case. It is just that no scientist had seen it in years. Big difference.
- dang 11y agoWe switched to the subtitle, which doesn't have this problem. Edit: ok you guys, it isn't sporting to only complain about titles—that's shooting birds in a barrel. Let's hear a better one!
- learning_still 11y agoEven with the subtitle, the comment still holds true. The article makes the bird out to be very rare so that we'll be upset about it when it's killed. And then much later in the article the writer reveals that it's not actually certain how rare this bird is. In fact, apparently it's seen all the time by the locals. So now that we emotionally invested in this bird on false pretenses, we are now supposed to decide whether or not we care that it was murdered.
- swombat 11y agoProgrammer destroys unique software configuration On Tuesday in Redomond, VA, a programmer uncovered a unique software configuration that was being activated under very specific circumstances. This specific software configuration had never been seen before. The programmer then proceeded to simply erase the unique configuration from existence, removing any trace of it from the master codebase. Locals in Redmond say that such configurations are rather common and call them "bugs".
- anon4 11y agoI was puzzled for a while, but then found out Xtreme Consulting have offices in Redmond -- guess you're talking about them.
- SixSigma 11y agoI believe the company he was referring to have their offices at : One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA
- geebee 11y agoAnd yet, during the next demo, there it was once again
- ScottBurson 11y agoHowever, it has a different problem. It says he was searching the bird for two decades. I doubt one could get a bird to hold still for that long to be searched. It should, of course, read "A scientist's decision to kill a bird he'd been searching for for two decades". (I see the problem is in the original.) Alternatively, one could say "... seeking for two decades". <pedantic grammar-nerd grin>
- waqf 11y agoI would argue that "two decades" can stand alone with the meaning "for two decades". However, your criticism's still justified because it's a garden-path construction.
- dang 11y agoHappy to increment the fors, but that doesn't solve your ambiguity objection. It merely turns "searching" back into the intransitive verb it should be.
- ScottBurson 11y agoThanks — but I don't get your comment. How is it still ambiguous?
- dang 11y agoArgh I misread you the first time. Sorry! Good one.