6 ms·

I don’t mind at all. The honest answer is I don’t really know. Broadly speaking it helps our voice sound authoritative and readable to not be breaking the flow

by halhod 3y ago

I don’t mind at all. The honest answer is I don’t really know. Broadly speaking it helps our voice sound authoritative and readable to not be breaking the flow of a piece up with lots of quotes and citations. But I can assure you I spoke to many people, and read many papers, in reporting the article

Zandikar 3y ago
> But I can assure you I spoke to many people, and read many papers, in reporting the article You keep saying that and not citing them. Please do.
- nunuvit 3y ago
  It hasn't even been an hour. Chill tf out.
  - Zandikar 3y ago
    I'm aware. Please point to the part where I specified a 1 hour (or any) deadline. They're free to do whatever the damn well please quite frankly, but as they've made multiple assurances that said sources do exists, I was just explicitly stating that we would like those citations. EDIT: And while typing this, they delivered.
    - nunuvit 3y ago
      Deadline? You wrote as if they were stalling or an unreasonably long time has passed, when hardly any time had passed at all.
      - Zandikar 3y ago
        Incorrect. They were waiting for someone to explicitly ask. And I Did. See their comment. You're the one that's reading far too into this and need to chill.
        nunuvit 3y ago
        I'm not criticizing you for asking. That phrasing is accusational and expresses annoyance, I'm reading it normally.
        Zandikar 3y ago
        The author was clearly making a point to make us ask explicitly even after we expressed concerns about their and their publications sources. Yes, I was annoyed by this. You however grossly misinterpreted as me being upset and demanding sources IMMEDIATELY, which wasn't the case. I made a single request to follow up on what the initial commenter in this thread said to reinforce that there are multiple of us in the comments that are highly skeptical of the claims in the paper, especially in light of a lack of byline or citations by the publisher. The author then happily obliged in a timely and respectful manner and addressed my concerns. You, however, are the one that took issue with it.
        nunuvit 3y ago
        I interpreted it normally. It seems you wrote it wrong.
- halhod 3y ago
  I said it once, and waited for them to express interest. Now you have. Here are some of the papers from which the reporting is drawn: starting point for abyssal biomass calcs - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.671062/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.6710... more on abyssal biomass- https://www.nature.com/articles/srep30492 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep30492 plant biomass per hectare in Sulawesi - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112709004940 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03781... nickel assessment in nori-d for per hectare numbers https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1798562/000121390021033645/fs42021a2ex96-1_sustainable.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1798562/000121390021... I spoke to Kris van Nijen, Gerard Barron, Nathan Eastwood, Adrian Glover, François Mosnier, Pia Heidak, Peter Tom Jones, Mervyn Stevens, Alex Laugharne
  - Zandikar 3y ago
    Much appreciated. This goes a long way in alleviating concerns about this being a paid piece by TMC and gives some insightful credence into the claims about deep water sea life and potential impacts. As I've apparently upset someone else in the comments by asking for citations, I just want to clarify that I didn't intend that as an attack. I'm just a bit incredulous that an organization with as much "prestige" and alleged journalistic integrity as The Economist doesn't - as a rule - cite their sources or byline their authors. Perhaps it's just a different way of doing things, but that really doesn't sit right with me for a number of reasons, and as a result, I have a hard time taking anything it says without a spoonfull of salt/sources. Thanks again.
    - halhod 3y ago
      No problem, happy to help
remarkEon 3y ago
I see. So you’re positing, essentially, two reasons: 1) stylistically it’s annoying to read broken sentences, and 2) The Economist is, ostensibly, an authoritative source and the reader is assumed to, more or less, just trust that they’re doing their homework - and you are here assuring us that your homework was, in fact, done. I’m not sure where you’re at, though I suppose it’s not unreasonable to assume the U.K., so this might be my US bias showing … but when I read something and the primary source is missing or there is insufficient citation (especially on a technical topic) I am immediately skeptical of the argument and my null hypothesis becomes that the piece is pushing a narrative. Perhaps that’s just cynical, but I’ve seen this phenomenon so many times where an article says X and doesn’t actually link the law (or court ruling or whatever) and when I go check it on my own it’s almost comically absurd for one to draw the article’s conclusion from the actual primary source. Of course, I’m not accusing you of doing this at all. Thanks for being a good sport.
- halhod 3y ago
  yeah you’ve got it. i’m based in London. i am fairly confident that our style can come across as arrogant. i don’t always ageee with it, though i can see its advantages. you’ll see i put a bunch of my sources below for you to check out if you like
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    I wouldn't say arrogant, really. The Economist definitely has an audience, which is in my view an educated urban professional who works in financial service, or maybe tech or tech-adjacent, or something on the periphery of government. So the tone is spot on, in my estimation. I'm probably just a cynical American and am too used to my news media intentionally lying to me, so don't take it personal if my question and/or explanation came off as rude. I did check out the links, thanks for providing them.
    - halhod 3y ago
      no worries at all, did not take it as such. and yeah, i guess i think just cos something has worked well for us for a long time, doesn’t mean it’s not worth thinking about how well it works today

by halhod 3y ago

Zandikar 3y ago

> But I can assure you I spoke to many people, and read many papers, in reporting the article You keep saying that and not citing them. Please do.

nunuvit 3y ago
It hasn't even been an hour. Chill tf out.
- Zandikar 3y ago
  I'm aware. Please point to the part where I specified a 1 hour (or any) deadline. They're free to do whatever the damn well please quite frankly, but as they've made multiple assurances that said sources do exists, I was just explicitly stating that we would like those citations. EDIT: And while typing this, they delivered.
  - nunuvit 3y ago
    Deadline? You wrote as if they were stalling or an unreasonably long time has passed, when hardly any time had passed at all.
    - Zandikar 3y ago
      Incorrect. They were waiting for someone to explicitly ask. And I Did. See their comment. You're the one that's reading far too into this and need to chill.
      - nunuvit 3y ago
        I'm not criticizing you for asking. That phrasing is accusational and expresses annoyance, I'm reading it normally.
        Zandikar 3y ago
        The author was clearly making a point to make us ask explicitly even after we expressed concerns about their and their publications sources. Yes, I was annoyed by this. You however grossly misinterpreted as me being upset and demanding sources IMMEDIATELY, which wasn't the case. I made a single request to follow up on what the initial commenter in this thread said to reinforce that there are multiple of us in the comments that are highly skeptical of the claims in the paper, especially in light of a lack of byline or citations by the publisher. The author then happily obliged in a timely and respectful manner and addressed my concerns. You, however, are the one that took issue with it.
        nunuvit 3y ago
        I interpreted it normally. It seems you wrote it wrong.
halhod 3y ago
I said it once, and waited for them to express interest. Now you have. Here are some of the papers from which the reporting is drawn: starting point for abyssal biomass calcs - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.671062/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.6710... more on abyssal biomass- https://www.nature.com/articles/srep30492 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep30492 plant biomass per hectare in Sulawesi - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112709004940 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03781... nickel assessment in nori-d for per hectare numbers https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1798562/000121390021033645/fs42021a2ex96-1_sustainable.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1798562/000121390021... I spoke to Kris van Nijen, Gerard Barron, Nathan Eastwood, Adrian Glover, François Mosnier, Pia Heidak, Peter Tom Jones, Mervyn Stevens, Alex Laugharne
- Zandikar 3y ago
  Much appreciated. This goes a long way in alleviating concerns about this being a paid piece by TMC and gives some insightful credence into the claims about deep water sea life and potential impacts. As I've apparently upset someone else in the comments by asking for citations, I just want to clarify that I didn't intend that as an attack. I'm just a bit incredulous that an organization with as much "prestige" and alleged journalistic integrity as The Economist doesn't - as a rule - cite their sources or byline their authors. Perhaps it's just a different way of doing things, but that really doesn't sit right with me for a number of reasons, and as a result, I have a hard time taking anything it says without a spoonfull of salt/sources. Thanks again.
  - halhod 3y ago
    No problem, happy to help

remarkEon 3y ago

I see. So you’re positing, essentially, two reasons: 1) stylistically it’s annoying to read broken sentences, and 2) The Economist is, ostensibly, an authoritative source and the reader is assumed to, more or less, just trust that they’re doing their homework - and you are here assuring us that your homework was, in fact, done. I’m not sure where you’re at, though I suppose it’s not unreasonable to assume the U.K., so this might be my US bias showing … but when I read something and the primary source is missing or there is insufficient citation (especially on a technical topic) I am immediately skeptical of the argument and my null hypothesis becomes that the piece is pushing a narrative. Perhaps that’s just cynical, but I’ve seen this phenomenon so many times where an article says X and doesn’t actually link the law (or court ruling or whatever) and when I go check it on my own it’s almost comically absurd for one to draw the article’s conclusion from the actual primary source. Of course, I’m not accusing you of doing this at all. Thanks for being a good sport.

halhod 3y ago
yeah you’ve got it. i’m based in London. i am fairly confident that our style can come across as arrogant. i don’t always ageee with it, though i can see its advantages. you’ll see i put a bunch of my sources below for you to check out if you like
- remarkEon 3y ago
  I wouldn't say arrogant, really. The Economist definitely has an audience, which is in my view an educated urban professional who works in financial service, or maybe tech or tech-adjacent, or something on the periphery of government. So the tone is spot on, in my estimation. I'm probably just a cynical American and am too used to my news media intentionally lying to me, so don't take it personal if my question and/or explanation came off as rude. I did check out the links, thanks for providing them.
  - halhod 3y ago
    no worries at all, did not take it as such. and yeah, i guess i think just cos something has worked well for us for a long time, doesn’t mean it’s not worth thinking about how well it works today