5 ms·

> title: defies laws of light physics > text: may sound like it does, but doesn't Yes, of course, the clickbait. Or the "How he got more clicks with this one

> title: defies laws of light physics > text: may sound like it does, but doesn't Yes, of course, the clickbait. Or the "How he got more clicks with this one simple trick" aka "The readers hate him for that". Sad to see stuff like this pop-up almost daily on HN lately.

Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago
Or an alternative take – A reader comes across something that seems interesting and submits it to HN to see what the more knowledgable (in the relevant topic) think. As for the number of junk/low grade scientific papers that are being published at the moment, it is way higher than it should be, however a reader of the submitted article link would take it at face value as having some solid science behind it. Paywalled research papers are a bane and can hide a multitude of sins (so thanks for the Arxiv link jari_mustonen). I tried to read the paper but was soon way out of my depth so the comments here that more or less say ‘this is junk for the following reasons’ are extremely helpful.
- Accacin 6y ago
  Yes! This is what I'm thankful about on /r/science and HN. A few times I find an article and as a layman, do not really fully understand. I generally look to see if it has been submitted on /r/science or HN to see what people more knowledgeable than me say about the article.
- dasudasu 6y ago
  It's almost certainly not junk when it makes it to Nature Photonics. This is the top journal in the field along with Science. The usability might not be there, but the science is almost guaranteed to be interesting. The news release spins are what they always are, and unrelated to the actual merits of the paper.
- godelski 6y ago
  This may be harder to do, because dang is doing most of the lifting, but it may be advantageous to shift these comments to a link that has the arxiv or nature link. In that way we wouldn't be supporting these clickbait type of articles. But depends if HN wants to take a stance in that fight, clearly this is difficult for users to do (because we are in essence priming the well). I also do appreciate the domain knowledge that HN has over many other forums and there's the old adage "they best way to get an answer is to post the wrong one." I was able to come to the HN comments and get: the arxiv link, the abstract, and both a high level and mid level explanation of the content. Seems pretty effective to me.
codeulike 6y ago
We're lucky though, that they didn't go with "Scientists are baffled by a new laser that breaks the laws of the universe"
- prox 6y ago
  “You won’t believe what Scientists did with this one neat laser trick”
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    “Which Disney Princess is this Space-Time Modulator?”
- m463 6y ago
  When will scientists figure out that bees actually can fly?

Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago

Or an alternative take – A reader comes across something that seems interesting and submits it to HN to see what the more knowledgable (in the relevant topic) think. As for the number of junk/low grade scientific papers that are being published at the moment, it is way higher than it should be, however a reader of the submitted article link would take it at face value as having some solid science behind it. Paywalled research papers are a bane and can hide a multitude of sins (so thanks for the Arxiv link jari_mustonen). I tried to read the paper but was soon way out of my depth so the comments here that more or less say ‘this is junk for the following reasons’ are extremely helpful.

Accacin 6y ago
Yes! This is what I'm thankful about on /r/science and HN. A few times I find an article and as a layman, do not really fully understand. I generally look to see if it has been submitted on /r/science or HN to see what people more knowledgeable than me say about the article.
dasudasu 6y ago
It's almost certainly not junk when it makes it to Nature Photonics. This is the top journal in the field along with Science. The usability might not be there, but the science is almost guaranteed to be interesting. The news release spins are what they always are, and unrelated to the actual merits of the paper.
godelski 6y ago
This may be harder to do, because dang is doing most of the lifting, but it may be advantageous to shift these comments to a link that has the arxiv or nature link. In that way we wouldn't be supporting these clickbait type of articles. But depends if HN wants to take a stance in that fight, clearly this is difficult for users to do (because we are in essence priming the well). I also do appreciate the domain knowledge that HN has over many other forums and there's the old adage "they best way to get an answer is to post the wrong one." I was able to come to the HN comments and get: the arxiv link, the abstract, and both a high level and mid level explanation of the content. Seems pretty effective to me.

codeulike 6y ago

We're lucky though, that they didn't go with "Scientists are baffled by a new laser that breaks the laws of the universe"

prox 6y ago
“You won’t believe what Scientists did with this one neat laser trick”
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  “Which Disney Princess is this Space-Time Modulator?”
m463 6y ago
When will scientists figure out that bees actually can fly?