5 ms·

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline... I'll wager a pint (or suitab

by delibes 10y ago

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline... I'll wager a pint (or suitable non-alcoholic equivalent) on it :) Win-win, since if I 'lose' I buy you a pint but something truly wonderful will have been discovered :)

pc86 10y ago
30 minutes seems to be close to the upper bound of someone linking to Betteridge. It's impressive that this thread lasted almost 40.
sklivvz1971 10y ago
http://ccdb5fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?199007095 http://ccdb5fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?199007095.
- Dolores12 10y ago
  According to Poreto Principle i expect this law to work in 80% of cases. :)
anoonmoose 10y ago
I think it's ridiculous that you're being downvoted, it smacks of HN not wanting to admit they're susceptible to upvoting clickbait nonsense. Just because your post is obvious doesn't mean it's not also the right response to this article.
- abiox 10y ago
  i hypothesize that the votes aren't about right-ness or wrong-ness, rather it may be more akin to "yes, we know, we've seen the betteridge link in every other post". it's also not clear that the article is "clickbait nonsense".
- spuz 10y ago
  People are not downvoting the comment because they believe that the headline is not clickbait, and the article is not nonsense. They are downvoting because the comment adds nothing that has not already been discussed many times already in other contexts. Headlines are often click-baity, now let's move on please.
  - deathhand 10y ago
    To derail the discussion even further: 1.)The given audience in any form is always changing. He might have given new information to someone who hasn't seen it before(young,new english speaker, ect) 2.)We are talking about SCIENCE and whats great about SCIENCE is that to do it well requires SKEPTICISM. The article itself even says that the results haven't been confirmed by a different specialized lab. I would be floored if we discovered another fundamental force but like all things we should ANALYZE all points of a subject.
    - privong 10y ago
      > 2.)We are talking about SCIENCE and whats great about SCIENCE is that to do it well requires SKEPTICISM. The article itself even says that the results haven't been confirmed by a different specialized lab. I would be floored if we discovered another fundamental force but like all things we should ANALYZE all points of a subject. I think you're being too generous with regard to the OP's comment. That comment appeared to be mostly a throw-away attempt to reference Bettridge's law, rather than offering any substantiate thoughts on the potential discovery or its likelihood of being a spurious result.
  - Dolores12 10y ago
    Why read article if nothing new were found? Betteridge Law is a timesaver. You can get instant answer without reading whole article.
- dang 10y ago
  Bringing up the Betteridge thing became a cliché years ago. It was interesting when pg originally posted it, quickly became tedious, and now is merely mechanical. It's also not as true as people think. Yes there are bad titles out there, though this article's is light years from the worst. That is no reason to bog HN threads down with predictable gunk. Anything predictable is boring.
Vendan 10y ago
sounds like https://xkcd.com/955/ https://xkcd.com/955/ :)
Dolores12 10y ago
Can we just auto-add a link to Betteridge Law to all topics ending with question mark?
gaur 10y ago
Obviously does not work: "Who will win the US presidential election?" "No."

by delibes 10y ago

pc86 10y ago

30 minutes seems to be close to the upper bound of someone linking to Betteridge. It's impressive that this thread lasted almost 40.

sklivvz1971 10y ago

http://ccdb5fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?199007095 http://ccdb5fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?199007095.

Dolores12 10y ago
According to Poreto Principle i expect this law to work in 80% of cases. :)

anoonmoose 10y ago

I think it's ridiculous that you're being downvoted, it smacks of HN not wanting to admit they're susceptible to upvoting clickbait nonsense. Just because your post is obvious doesn't mean it's not also the right response to this article.

abiox 10y ago
i hypothesize that the votes aren't about right-ness or wrong-ness, rather it may be more akin to "yes, we know, we've seen the betteridge link in every other post". it's also not clear that the article is "clickbait nonsense".
spuz 10y ago
People are not downvoting the comment because they believe that the headline is not clickbait, and the article is not nonsense. They are downvoting because the comment adds nothing that has not already been discussed many times already in other contexts. Headlines are often click-baity, now let's move on please.
- deathhand 10y ago
  To derail the discussion even further: 1.)The given audience in any form is always changing. He might have given new information to someone who hasn't seen it before(young,new english speaker, ect) 2.)We are talking about SCIENCE and whats great about SCIENCE is that to do it well requires SKEPTICISM. The article itself even says that the results haven't been confirmed by a different specialized lab. I would be floored if we discovered another fundamental force but like all things we should ANALYZE all points of a subject.
  - privong 10y ago
    > 2.)We are talking about SCIENCE and whats great about SCIENCE is that to do it well requires SKEPTICISM. The article itself even says that the results haven't been confirmed by a different specialized lab. I would be floored if we discovered another fundamental force but like all things we should ANALYZE all points of a subject. I think you're being too generous with regard to the OP's comment. That comment appeared to be mostly a throw-away attempt to reference Bettridge's law, rather than offering any substantiate thoughts on the potential discovery or its likelihood of being a spurious result.
- Dolores12 10y ago
  Why read article if nothing new were found? Betteridge Law is a timesaver. You can get instant answer without reading whole article.
dang 10y ago
Bringing up the Betteridge thing became a cliché years ago. It was interesting when pg originally posted it, quickly became tedious, and now is merely mechanical. It's also not as true as people think. Yes there are bad titles out there, though this article's is light years from the worst. That is no reason to bog HN threads down with predictable gunk. Anything predictable is boring.

Vendan 10y ago

sounds like https://xkcd.com/955/ https://xkcd.com/955/ :)

Dolores12 10y ago

Can we just auto-add a link to Betteridge Law to all topics ending with question mark?

gaur 10y ago

Obviously does not work: "Who will win the US presidential election?" "No."