3 ms·

> Sadly, the New Yorker judges that its readers can handle terms such as "epipelagic" and "hadal", but not the reporting of depths in meters. Are you complaini

> Sadly, the New Yorker judges that its readers can handle terms such as "epipelagic" and "hadal", but not the reporting of depths in meters. Are you complaining that they aren't reporting depths in both feet and meters? Or that they aren't reporting depths in only meters? Also why does it matter? Is the conversion that complicated?

sandworm101 6y ago
Because it is incongruous to toss around "epipelagic" to sound scientific, but then quote every unit of distance in feet/miles. But they also convert their photography to black and white to evoke oldschool print journalism, to evoke the nostalgia so loved by their target demographic. The New Yorker isn't the place for scientific reporting.
- ubermonkey 6y ago
  I had no idea you were so plugged in to the intentions of the New Yorker editorial staff. In fact, not all photography in the New Yorker is black and white. >The New Yorker isn't the place for scientific reporting. That's a curious and largely indefensible statement not at all supported by facts. What subjects are within their legitimate remit, then?
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    >> What subjects are within their legitimate remit, then? Not science. Their stylistic goals are blatant in the work they produce, this article in particular. The language is very particular, the absence of any reference to the metric system in an allegedly scientific article is notable. And they do convert their photos. Every non-animated photo in this article is BW. Despite all the web trickery, this article still pretends to be a print publication.
    - ubermonkey 6y ago
      >Not science. Their stylistic goals are blatant in the work they produce, this article in particular. That's a pretty loose and fundamentally unsupported statement. >the absence of any reference to the metric system in an allegedly scientific article is notable. The metric system isn't magic. It's normal to use the system most familiar to the audience being addressed. It is definitely weird that you're so hung up on this. My assumption, based on your strange snark regarding TNY, is that you just dislike the magazine for some reason you probably haven't really examined. Fortunately, no one at the New Yorker is listening to you. Put simply, there is no better source of carefully researched and well written long-form nonfiction in the US. They cover history, politics, entertainment, culture, and (yes!) science, and they do it at an award-winning level. Their coverage of issues around medicine and health care has been and remains especially relevant and fascinating -- folks like Jerome Groopman and Atul Gawande (who is, by the way, a MacArthur fellow) produce tremendous pieces in this area, all of which are well worth your time unless you're just too invested in hating on the magazine because they said "foot" instead of "meter." > Every non-animated photo in this article is BW But every photo in the New Yorker is not in this article. >this article still pretends to be a print publication. That's pretty deliberate, and is also completely unrelated to your complaints about what subject matter is appropriate for the magazine.
- irrational 6y ago
  Maybe they didn't even notice. It's not like the New Yorker is a science magazine or this was a science article. I didn't notice what unit of measurement was being used, but that is probably because I am accustomed to thinking in feet and miles. That might be the same with the New Yorker authors and editors. It probably didn't even occur to them.
- CogitoCogito 6y ago
  > Because it is incongruous to toss around "epipelagic" to sound scientific, but then quote every unit of distance in feet/miles. The metric system is not more "scientific". It has certain convenient properties that make it easier to use under many situations, but it's not inherently better. Any "scientist" can make the trivial conversion to their system of choice. The New Yorker is clearly choosing to target a specific audience where they think that use of units is appropriate. Get over it.

sandworm101 6y ago

Because it is incongruous to toss around "epipelagic" to sound scientific, but then quote every unit of distance in feet/miles. But they also convert their photography to black and white to evoke oldschool print journalism, to evoke the nostalgia so loved by their target demographic. The New Yorker isn't the place for scientific reporting.

ubermonkey 6y ago
I had no idea you were so plugged in to the intentions of the New Yorker editorial staff. In fact, not all photography in the New Yorker is black and white. >The New Yorker isn't the place for scientific reporting. That's a curious and largely indefensible statement not at all supported by facts. What subjects are within their legitimate remit, then?
- sandworm101 6y ago
  >> What subjects are within their legitimate remit, then? Not science. Their stylistic goals are blatant in the work they produce, this article in particular. The language is very particular, the absence of any reference to the metric system in an allegedly scientific article is notable. And they do convert their photos. Every non-animated photo in this article is BW. Despite all the web trickery, this article still pretends to be a print publication.
  - ubermonkey 6y ago
    >Not science. Their stylistic goals are blatant in the work they produce, this article in particular. That's a pretty loose and fundamentally unsupported statement. >the absence of any reference to the metric system in an allegedly scientific article is notable. The metric system isn't magic. It's normal to use the system most familiar to the audience being addressed. It is definitely weird that you're so hung up on this. My assumption, based on your strange snark regarding TNY, is that you just dislike the magazine for some reason you probably haven't really examined. Fortunately, no one at the New Yorker is listening to you. Put simply, there is no better source of carefully researched and well written long-form nonfiction in the US. They cover history, politics, entertainment, culture, and (yes!) science, and they do it at an award-winning level. Their coverage of issues around medicine and health care has been and remains especially relevant and fascinating -- folks like Jerome Groopman and Atul Gawande (who is, by the way, a MacArthur fellow) produce tremendous pieces in this area, all of which are well worth your time unless you're just too invested in hating on the magazine because they said "foot" instead of "meter." > Every non-animated photo in this article is BW But every photo in the New Yorker is not in this article. >this article still pretends to be a print publication. That's pretty deliberate, and is also completely unrelated to your complaints about what subject matter is appropriate for the magazine.
irrational 6y ago
Maybe they didn't even notice. It's not like the New Yorker is a science magazine or this was a science article. I didn't notice what unit of measurement was being used, but that is probably because I am accustomed to thinking in feet and miles. That might be the same with the New Yorker authors and editors. It probably didn't even occur to them.
CogitoCogito 6y ago
> Because it is incongruous to toss around "epipelagic" to sound scientific, but then quote every unit of distance in feet/miles. The metric system is not more "scientific". It has certain convenient properties that make it easier to use under many situations, but it's not inherently better. Any "scientist" can make the trivial conversion to their system of choice. The New Yorker is clearly choosing to target a specific audience where they think that use of units is appropriate. Get over it.