5 ms·

How, exactly, is this defeatist? It's defining the size of the problem. If we don't know what's actually needed to solve the problem, how are we supposed to eve

How, exactly, is this defeatist? It's defining the size of the problem. If we don't know what's actually needed to solve the problem, how are we supposed to ever solve it? I'm also rather unsure what innovation you're imagining here. It's literally a model of ocean acidity based on some tons/year of carbon sequestration. Innovation can make this cheaper, but the model isn't about cost.

silisili 5y ago
The size of the problem is known, sure. But the framing is bad. Tell us what we can do to help, in realistic timespans, and where that gets us. If the answer today is 'nothing', then what would ever get people to care? As for carbon sequestration, I'm not learned enough on the subject to even guess what's possible, or if the idea of doing it faster is feasible from a scientific standpoint. Is the moral of the story that we must do carbon capture better, or that we're all screwed?
- revscat 5y ago
  The article is reporting upon a scientific study. It is up to you to decide what that means, not them. If you choose to act on it by complaining about tone then that is your problem, not theirs. Perhaps instead you yourself should do something, something more productive than complaining about word choices and/or tone, neither of which are helpful in the slightest.
  - silisili 5y ago
    Because these choices matter. Again, you're not going to ever get people on board with such data. That's what I care about. This isn't being pedantic, it's trying to help get people's attention. This does not.
    - revscat 5y ago
      You don’t know that, have no way of knowing that, and have no proof of it. This is simply your opinion, and, like assholes, everyone has one. (And I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because honestly I have zero expectation that you are arguing in good faith.) All you seem to be interested in, like others before you, is detracting the conversation away from the underlying story. “If only they had approached it differently!” Yet no matter how it is approached the response from those like you is exactly the same. Not to mention that it doesn’t matter. This article isn’t even a call to action. It is simply dryly stating facts. There is no “come in guys, we can do this!” It instead says “ocean acidification will take hundreds of years to recover.” That’s it. There is no way to frame this other than clinically. How exactly could it be framed differently? Do tell!
      - silisili 5y ago
        Just replying to say I did read your reply, and I apologize that I've upset you in my replies. My intent is/was never to distract from the data at hand. I care about the issue greatly, but am not super educated on the topic. I am, admittedly, mostly speaking from how I view this data and presentation, as a layperson. I'm not interested in arguing, so I'll stop on the topic.
revscat 5y ago
This is the go-to response on HN now when it comes to articles related to the environment. It’s general form is: “it’s not what they say, it’s how they say it.” IOW: nonsensical replies that steer the conversation away from the point being made, intentionally or not.

silisili 5y ago

The size of the problem is known, sure. But the framing is bad. Tell us what we can do to help, in realistic timespans, and where that gets us. If the answer today is 'nothing', then what would ever get people to care? As for carbon sequestration, I'm not learned enough on the subject to even guess what's possible, or if the idea of doing it faster is feasible from a scientific standpoint. Is the moral of the story that we must do carbon capture better, or that we're all screwed?

revscat 5y ago
The article is reporting upon a scientific study. It is up to you to decide what that means, not them. If you choose to act on it by complaining about tone then that is your problem, not theirs. Perhaps instead you yourself should do something, something more productive than complaining about word choices and/or tone, neither of which are helpful in the slightest.
- silisili 5y ago
  Because these choices matter. Again, you're not going to ever get people on board with such data. That's what I care about. This isn't being pedantic, it's trying to help get people's attention. This does not.
  - revscat 5y ago
    You don’t know that, have no way of knowing that, and have no proof of it. This is simply your opinion, and, like assholes, everyone has one. (And I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because honestly I have zero expectation that you are arguing in good faith.) All you seem to be interested in, like others before you, is detracting the conversation away from the underlying story. “If only they had approached it differently!” Yet no matter how it is approached the response from those like you is exactly the same. Not to mention that it doesn’t matter. This article isn’t even a call to action. It is simply dryly stating facts. There is no “come in guys, we can do this!” It instead says “ocean acidification will take hundreds of years to recover.” That’s it. There is no way to frame this other than clinically. How exactly could it be framed differently? Do tell!
    - silisili 5y ago
      Just replying to say I did read your reply, and I apologize that I've upset you in my replies. My intent is/was never to distract from the data at hand. I care about the issue greatly, but am not super educated on the topic. I am, admittedly, mostly speaking from how I view this data and presentation, as a layperson. I'm not interested in arguing, so I'll stop on the topic.

revscat 5y ago

This is the go-to response on HN now when it comes to articles related to the environment. It’s general form is: “it’s not what they say, it’s how they say it.” IOW: nonsensical replies that steer the conversation away from the point being made, intentionally or not.