4 ms·

Say no to clickbait media. The paper quoted in the article is https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq2105 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.a

by gaudat 4y ago

Say no to clickbait media. The paper quoted in the article is https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq2105 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq2105

quietbritishjim 4y ago
In fairness, a reputable newspaper summarising an academic article for a general audience is not "clickbait". For most people, "the compression of MDA at low temperature leads to a sharp increase of its recrystallization enthalpy, highlighting that H2O can be a high-energy geophysical material" (that's just from the abstract) is not really accessible. In this case, the article isn't even open access.
- mikewarot 4y ago
  >a high-energy geophysical material Is there some heat of fusion delta from "regular" ice that means this can store a large amount of energy?
  - yetihehe 4y ago
    From article: "But compressing MDA and then releasing the pressure and heating it released a large burst of energy. That energy, released as the amorphous ice recrystallizes, could set off icequakes, for example." Probably not large, but enough to melt some surrounding normal ice? Or causes material to expand rapidly by several percent?
- ghaff 4y ago
  "Clickbait" as a term is mostly a lazy putdown that needs to die unless it's something in the vein of "5 amazing facts about $X, you won't believe #3." Newspapers and articles (and book titles) have been using headlines to hook readers since before there were clicks and there's really nothing wrong with wanting to engage an audience. Not everything is "just the facts."
  - andrewstuart2 4y ago
    This headline still feels like click bait to me. They've just swapped in "something new" for what might have been "this." At the very least, it doesn't really summarize anything about the conclusion but leaves you unable to decide if the article is interesting enough for your time without further reading. Headlines should generally give you information ("Titanic Sinks Four Hours After Hitting Iceberg"), and help you decide whether you want to read the full story.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Headline styles vary. Look at a print version of The Economist for example. The subhead/dek does tend to be a summary but the actual hed is often some sort of clever wordplay.
  - phyzome 4y ago
    The phrase "transformed it into something never before seen" is pretty sus. They made ice... into more different ice. It's not like they made it into iridescent smoke or something. A more honest headline would be something like "Researchers succeed in creating a new kind of amorphous ice". Not as exciting? Too bad! That's because it isn't as exciting as the misleading thing.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Having a grad degree in material science I personally understand the distinction between amorphous and crystalline ice and might find that headline intriguing. I suspect it would be a turnoff for the average Times reader.
      - fnordpiglet 4y ago
        Do you find the times article bait and switch? My reading was it is something never seen before, and I found it interesting and exciting and the properties discussed seemed unique (the pressure+heat=lots of energy particularly). But as an expert in the field, is the headline over stating the result to entice clicks?
- Slighted 4y ago
  >a reputable newspaper Hardly.
- rntn 4y ago
  General audience summary by a university involved in this research from last week, posted 3 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34646625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34646625
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
g42gregory 4y ago
Wait, are implying to say no to the venerable New York Times? Did you not know that this is a "newspaper of record" with "all news that fit to print"?

by gaudat 4y ago

Say no to clickbait media. The paper quoted in the article is https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq2105 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq2105

quietbritishjim 4y ago

In fairness, a reputable newspaper summarising an academic article for a general audience is not "clickbait". For most people, "the compression of MDA at low temperature leads to a sharp increase of its recrystallization enthalpy, highlighting that H2O can be a high-energy geophysical material" (that's just from the abstract) is not really accessible. In this case, the article isn't even open access.

mikewarot 4y ago
>a high-energy geophysical material Is there some heat of fusion delta from "regular" ice that means this can store a large amount of energy?
- yetihehe 4y ago
  From article: "But compressing MDA and then releasing the pressure and heating it released a large burst of energy. That energy, released as the amorphous ice recrystallizes, could set off icequakes, for example." Probably not large, but enough to melt some surrounding normal ice? Or causes material to expand rapidly by several percent?
ghaff 4y ago
"Clickbait" as a term is mostly a lazy putdown that needs to die unless it's something in the vein of "5 amazing facts about $X, you won't believe #3." Newspapers and articles (and book titles) have been using headlines to hook readers since before there were clicks and there's really nothing wrong with wanting to engage an audience. Not everything is "just the facts."
- andrewstuart2 4y ago
  This headline still feels like click bait to me. They've just swapped in "something new" for what might have been "this." At the very least, it doesn't really summarize anything about the conclusion but leaves you unable to decide if the article is interesting enough for your time without further reading. Headlines should generally give you information ("Titanic Sinks Four Hours After Hitting Iceberg"), and help you decide whether you want to read the full story.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Headline styles vary. Look at a print version of The Economist for example. The subhead/dek does tend to be a summary but the actual hed is often some sort of clever wordplay.
- phyzome 4y ago
  The phrase "transformed it into something never before seen" is pretty sus. They made ice... into more different ice. It's not like they made it into iridescent smoke or something. A more honest headline would be something like "Researchers succeed in creating a new kind of amorphous ice". Not as exciting? Too bad! That's because it isn't as exciting as the misleading thing.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Having a grad degree in material science I personally understand the distinction between amorphous and crystalline ice and might find that headline intriguing. I suspect it would be a turnoff for the average Times reader.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      Do you find the times article bait and switch? My reading was it is something never seen before, and I found it interesting and exciting and the properties discussed seemed unique (the pressure+heat=lots of energy particularly). But as an expert in the field, is the headline over stating the result to entice clicks?
Slighted 4y ago
>a reputable newspaper Hardly.
rntn 4y ago
General audience summary by a university involved in this research from last week, posted 3 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34646625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34646625

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

g42gregory 4y ago

Wait, are implying to say no to the venerable New York Times? Did you not know that this is a "newspaper of record" with "all news that fit to print"?