3 ms·
If you're a "layperson" and resorting to reading wikipedia, then you really have no basis to draw any conclusion. But you're extremely willing to jump to scary
by timr 5y ago
If you're a "layperson" and resorting to reading wikipedia, then you really have no basis to draw any conclusion. But you're extremely willing to jump to scary conclusions, and disregard people who understand the paper and terminology and tell you that your conclusion is wrong.
- slg 5y agoI think there is an implicit assumption that HN titles shouldn't be written in jargon that most people reading it won't understand.
- timr 5y agoIt's a medical paper. It isn't written for non-practitioners, and if you don't understand it, the best thing to do is not to speculate, but to reserve judgment.
- slg 5y agoI don't know what your point is considering I never speculated about anything in these comments. Ironically enough, you seem to be speculating about what people might speculate about when they see that headline.
- timr 5y ago> I'm a layperson. Like many laypeople, I would have no idea what the "olfactory bulb" was if I saw it in a headline...It certainly sounds like "brain" is a fair and accurate summary.
- slg 5y agoIt is funny how something starts to seem more like speculation when you conveniently throw an ellipsis over the part in which I cite the source where the "speculation" came from. I wasn't speculating. I was quoting Wikipedia.