3 ms·

If your complaint is not the message, but rather the phrasing, then I'd say that you're not being very charitable.

• mikeash 10y ago
  It's both. The phrasing contains a message of "these scientists didn't consider this obvious problem."
  • jdmichal 10y ago
    That's fair. To the point, this person [0] doesn't seem to be having any issues with downvotes, even though the comment raises the same basic issue -- the reliability of the crystalline entrapment. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12186872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12186872
    • dpark 10y ago
      In fairness, that comment was phrased as "I don't understand this, I'd like to know more" rather than "These guys are clearly making a mistake". Relevant part from the comment you linked: "My question is if the salt completely stopped all diffusion over the last billion years. Maybe somebody here can answer." If you don't understand something and say so, you sound far less arrogant and condescending.
  • IanDrake 10y ago
    No Mike, it doesn't contain that message. My message is that you, the reader, should consider that this "obvious problem" is a substantial one and that the entire premise of this measurement is based on a particular understanding of the ageing process of air in a salt crystal over time.
    • mikeash 10y ago
      When you say that this understanding "seems to assume" this, you're pretty strongly implying that there aren't any good reasons to think it's true. Maybe you just meant to say that it's based on that idea, rather than assuming it?