4 ms·

Well, from the other side of the peanut gallery, I think your outrage is misplaced. "Deception" needn't be malicious, and the title already calls this out as a

• markkanof 8y ago
  That is the actual definition of deception.
  • pushpop 8y ago
    One of the definitions but not the only one. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/deceptive https://www.dictionary.com/browse/deceptive It’s quite common - in the UK at least - to say things like “It’s deceptively cold outside.” When the weather is cooler than it looks. Clearly we are not saying “The weather is not intentionally deceiving us.” Because that would imply sentience in something that isn’t. The same logic applies with this title as well.
    • cgriswald 8y ago
      I don’t really buy your argument. First, your example is contextually different: weather is natural and lacks agency. Second, you used the adverb form which has a different implication. The title is not “...and a deceptively simple image.” If it we’re, we would probably not be having this discussion.
      • pushpop 8y ago
        That’s why it’s an example for comparison rather than a literally the same sentence repeated ;) You can apply the death by a thousand paper cut method of debate if you like but that doesn’t change the definition I also referenced. The fact is the title doesn’t have to mean intention even if that’s the meaning you chose to read in it.
        • cgriswald 8y ago
          I think you’ve missed the point. By using the adverb-adjective form it removes agency and no longer has the negative connotations. Your example is inapt, not because it isn’t identical but because it is very different. In any case, implying one thing even though it can literally mean another thing is standard clickbait fair.
          • pushpop 8y ago
            I got your point and said it’s irrelevant nitpicking that completely ignores the definition I linked to in my first post. Sure, it might be a bit clickbaity but this trend of “I didn’t bother to read the article so I’m going to bitch and moan about the title instead” I’ve seen on HN is way worse than the title in question.
            • cgriswald 8y ago
              I think you should look at your definition again, because I did not ignore it. In the example given by the dictionary for your prefered definition, they use the word to modify an adjectivized object. Although written in a different form, it is functionally equivalent to the form adverb-adjective object of the example you gave (i.e. "a deceptively curved line"). Hence, this is not 'irrelevant nitpicking' but attention to details that make your argument at best unconvincing. To me, irrelevant nitpicking would be offering a secondary definition which is demonstrably not the definition the author or the majority of readers are using and which only applies under different context. > Sure, it might be a bit clickbaity but this trend of “I didn’t bother to read the article so I’m going to bitch and moan about the title instead” I’ve seen on HN is way worse than the title in question. The OP indicated he had read the article and was objecting because the title did not match the content. If a reader has to perform grammatical gymnastics to make a title fit, it is at best poor writing and at worst deceptive. Cheers
              • pushpop 8y ago
                The fact that you concede the title can be read that way - even if it is begrudgingly - means your post is entirely made up of nitpicking and mental gymnastics (as you put it). Which means you’re being just as deceptive as the title you’re complaining about
• kurthr 8y ago
  I think you're trying to say that telling white lies is deception, but not malicious... however, in this case it is not the scientist nor the picture, but they claim nature that is malicious in showing us what we expect to see (or what the writers think we expect to see). "The temptation is to interpret the EHT image as a straightforward telescopic view of the hot accretion disk, seen from above, with the black hole carving out a hole in the middle. But it isn’t quite that." So that's not what I expected to see, nor what I think I saw, but then I'm probably not part of the typical public. I do realize that it's a radio image not in the visible spectrum... so maybe that's deceptive too, like thermal imaging. But it's still click bait.
  • DONT_BE_A_MORON 8y ago
    11 giant fucking paragraphs of shit and the author, if he wants to call it deceptive, should have just shopped what he thinks it shows, or just written it in a tweet no idea what's in those 11 paragraphs, but the start of the first one sounds like someone reciting what they did over summer vacation. what a rambling idiot
• wongarsu 8y ago
  The image is deceiving, in the way that it is causing you to think something is true that isn't. Of course any 2d image is a black hole is deceptive by nature, no matter what you do. The problem is that when the deception is caused by a person instead of an object it is malicious. "The picture is deceptive" is neutral, but "scientists created a deceptive image" sounds very malicious. And while the headline states the former, it's not a big leap to assume the latter.