5 ms·

> “I have a two-hour podcast every week,” he said. “Very few people are listening because it's long and complicated.” I think this is a good example of an oppo

> “I have a two-hour podcast every week,” he said. “Very few people are listening because it's long and complicated.” I think this is a good example of an opportunity the population here on HN can exploit, and which many others can't: We can metabolize a deeper-than-average scientific discussion and help convert that into reliable and responsible social discourse. It's just a matter of making the time, of seeking out the expert-level information, and digging in. This is also more respectable IMO than mainly just being critical of information and influencers. A lot of the so-called influencers are good people who are trying to help out where they can. That's why they're getting attention; the social organism is looking for help right now. The critical viewpoint is not nearly as effective under these circumstances, in part because it shoots down solutions more than it creates or identifies them.

creato 7y ago
I don't think the commentary I've seen here is that much better than what I see e.g. on reddit. Maybe on average, people here are better at reading primary scientific sources, but that is still a small minority of people that either can or take the time to do so.
- timr 7y ago
  I am a scientist, with extensive training in biochemistry and cell and molecular biology, and I can tell you that the commentary here has been abysmal. Factual information with citations (often, multiple) is routinely grayed out due to herd downvoting, while wild speculation and opinion are at the top of threads. Folks here know about enough science and math to be persuasive when extrapolating, but not enough to truly understand what they're reading, and that's dangerous.
antonzabirko 7y ago
excellent analysis
raphlinus 7y ago
I've been trying to do that, and spent a great deal of time Monday trying to engage such conversation, always very carefully checking my own sources and also ones cited at me. I didn't get nearly as much engagement as speculation (possible cures) and dangerous misinformation. And yesterday most of the Covid threads here were terrible, full of racism, conspiracies, and so on. Another programmer-based forum I frequent has banned Covid topics altogether. I don't have good solutions here, other than to try to be very careful in choosing only high quality information sources. Getting the word out will be a key part of the response, and I see serious problems in that.
rhizome 7y ago
>We can metabolize a deeper-than-average scientific discussion and help convert that into reliable and responsible social discourse. I appreciate the sentiment, but no: HN people and related writing is invariably bad. I realize this will raise hackles. >It's just a matter of making the time, of seeking out the expert-level information, and digging in. Racaniello has a two-hour podcast comprised of complicated, expert-level information, and it takes talent to winnow that down into lay language and, more importantly, lay time-constraints. Among people who can barely concern themselves with GitHub READMEs and "wait, but what is it?"[1] site pitches, the HN population does not have a good track record at clarifying plain information, let alone translating between skill levels. This difficulty and need for understandability is where the goofs described in the article find room to exist. "Just come up with something, and something is better than nothing," the charlatan professes. The problem is that the true expertise gets clouded or even left at the wayside. Irrelevant or confounding perspectives included for no good reason, faulty conclusions, and any other kind of "it was hard before, you simplified it, now it's impossible" derivations of the source material. Of course, don't get me started on two-hour (and longer) podcasts, itself a format that is extremely hostile to a listener's free time. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22593568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22593568

creato 7y ago

I don't think the commentary I've seen here is that much better than what I see e.g. on reddit. Maybe on average, people here are better at reading primary scientific sources, but that is still a small minority of people that either can or take the time to do so.

timr 7y ago
I am a scientist, with extensive training in biochemistry and cell and molecular biology, and I can tell you that the commentary here has been abysmal. Factual information with citations (often, multiple) is routinely grayed out due to herd downvoting, while wild speculation and opinion are at the top of threads. Folks here know about enough science and math to be persuasive when extrapolating, but not enough to truly understand what they're reading, and that's dangerous.

antonzabirko 7y ago

excellent analysis

raphlinus 7y ago

I've been trying to do that, and spent a great deal of time Monday trying to engage such conversation, always very carefully checking my own sources and also ones cited at me. I didn't get nearly as much engagement as speculation (possible cures) and dangerous misinformation. And yesterday most of the Covid threads here were terrible, full of racism, conspiracies, and so on. Another programmer-based forum I frequent has banned Covid topics altogether. I don't have good solutions here, other than to try to be very careful in choosing only high quality information sources. Getting the word out will be a key part of the response, and I see serious problems in that.

rhizome 7y ago

>We can metabolize a deeper-than-average scientific discussion and help convert that into reliable and responsible social discourse. I appreciate the sentiment, but no: HN people and related writing is invariably bad. I realize this will raise hackles. >It's just a matter of making the time, of seeking out the expert-level information, and digging in. Racaniello has a two-hour podcast comprised of complicated, expert-level information, and it takes talent to winnow that down into lay language and, more importantly, lay time-constraints. Among people who can barely concern themselves with GitHub READMEs and "wait, but what is it?"[1] site pitches, the HN population does not have a good track record at clarifying plain information, let alone translating between skill levels. This difficulty and need for understandability is where the goofs described in the article find room to exist. "Just come up with something, and something is better than nothing," the charlatan professes. The problem is that the true expertise gets clouded or even left at the wayside. Irrelevant or confounding perspectives included for no good reason, faulty conclusions, and any other kind of "it was hard before, you simplified it, now it's impossible" derivations of the source material. Of course, don't get me started on two-hour (and longer) podcasts, itself a format that is extremely hostile to a listener's free time. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22593568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22593568