6 ms·
Sort of like p-hacking: If you choose small colonies, all located in a small area known for instable ice conditions, in some years, those colonies have problems
by bradley13 3y ago
Sort of like p-hacking: If you choose small colonies, all located in a small area known for instable ice conditions, in some years, those colonies have problems. The ice in that area is subject to severe weather conditions, and in some years it breaks up and floats away.
Those problems didn't apply to the rest of Antarctica, but by omitting that information, the article makes good clickbait...
- base698 3y ago"factual but not truthful"
- legacynl 3y agothats a nice play on words, but fact and truth are synonymous. I think you're looking for the phrase: "factual but not informative"
- clort 3y agoI guess there is a reason they settled on the phrase "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". This article is truth, but not the whole truth.
- praptak 3y agoKnowing some facts and knowing the truth are different things. I'd say "factual but not truthful" is rigorous enough for a quip.
- whelp_24 3y agoFact and truth aren't synonymous. The connotation in English is different. A fact implies a verifiable statement with no grey area."A man died from falling". The truth implies you have the full picture and relevant context. "A man was murdered by being pushed off a building". Murder of course can't be 100% proven, it's a legal concept that involves intent and pre-planning and your location etc. Our fictional friend may be able to get a technicality that makes purposely pushing a man off a building not legally murder. But the truth would still be he murdered him.
- jefftk 3y ago"A man died from falling" is still truthful, though? This is why courts have you commit not just to tell the truth, but the whole truth.
- sokoloff 3y ago“The man did not die from the fall” is another example here. (He died from the impact, not the fall.)
- jefftk 3y agoI think that one is false, though? All of the following can be true: * The man died from massive internal bleeding * The man died from hitting the ground really hard * The man died from falling off a building * The man died from being pushed off a building
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rmbyrro 3y agoPerhaps intentionally misleading?
- euroderf 3y ago> "factual but not truthful" Synonym for "talking points" ?
- rayiner 3y agoIsn’t the point that Antarctic sea ice is at a record low extent?
- quickthrower2 3y agoNot a single human survived in parts of NYC is technically true. Everyone is a billionaire in parts of SF.
- andrewinardeer 3y agoI feel silly for asking, however, this comment has 'whooshed' right over my head. Can you please elaborate and explain this to me?
- V1ndaar 3y agoThe point is you can always pick a "part" of some place small enough to make any statement of that sort true. Pick a couple of square meter where someone died: "everyone died in parts of X". Pick the area around a couple of billionaire neighbors in SF: everyone is a billionaire in parts of SF. Etc.
- chiefalchemist 3y agoTaken a step further, it's not science when the conclusion is based on cherry picked data; and it's not journalism when you ignore the fact the "science" isn't actually science.
- magicalhippo 3y agoThis is why mathematicians are so meticulous with their "if and only if", "everywhere except a countable number of points", infinimum/supremum[1] and so on, and of course equations to really nail things down. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infimum_and_supremum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infimum_and_supremum
- NL807 3y agoIt's related to the cherry picking fallacy. It's like saying, "everybody speaks French in parts of Europe", making it seem like that is the dominant language. While technically true that people speak French in Europe, the statement also completely omits a crucial detail that 92 % rest of Europe doesn't.
- Perenti 3y agoVery little in the Sydney Morning Herald is true or factual. It's a player in politics of lies.
- netsharc 3y agoMeta: well, not sure if it was your goal, but reading your dismissal made me think, "Oh, this HN commenter's pointed out the article is full of crap, so, no need to attribute this to climate change, then.".. luckily another part of my brain said, "Wait a minute, why are you defaulting to thinking that HN commenter knows what he's talking about?!".
- sokoloff 3y agoFor me, once I realize that an article has specifically intended to deceive me (whether by exaggeration or misdirection), I don’t spend time further evaluating or even consuming what they were trying to say. You could have a solid argument underlying your exaggeration and I just don’t care. Once you’ve intentionally deceived, I stop paying attention to you. You don’t lose just the detected deceitful part of your argument; you lose it all. In that regard, whether or not the HN commenter knows anything about the underlying issue doesn’t matter. If they correctly clue me in to the deception, I don’t read the article.
- dmvdoug 3y agoThat’s a shame. The writers of articles usually are not the writers of headlines. Yet you implicate the writer in the deception of the copywriter.
- sokoloff 3y agoThe writers of articles have far more per-capita influence over headlines than the readers do. If they want to maximize the reach and value of their work, they should exercise that influence. Meanwhile, I'm doing my best by exercising the only influence that I have in the situation: hitting the X.
- dmvdoug 3y agoOn the contrary, they have identical per capita influence: 0. At least as far as I understand how newspapers, magazines, etc. work. Blog writers? Sure.
- lozenge 3y agoNow why are those ice conditions instable?
- bjourne 3y ago"Record low 2022 Antarctic sea ice led to catastrophic breeding failure of emperor penguins" "This is the first recorded incident of a widespread breeding failure of emperor penguins that is clearly linked with large-scale contractions in sea ice extent." https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00927-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00927-x Published and peer-reviewed. But according to you it is clickbait?
- chengiz 3y agoYes? Title has no mention about specific regions. Abstract mentions specific regions. Even your comment is clickbait: you only include the title and a sentence that does not mention specific regions, despite you being aware of it, since you presumably read the abstract.
- tasogare 3y ago[dead]
- madmulita 3y agoLet's stop pretending "peer-reviewed" means anything, please.
- jmye 3y agoYes, a comment on a website that just says “no” is way more truthy and should be taken at face value. Anything published and peer reviewed can just be assumed to be false. Great call. Thanks for really bringing up the level of discourse.
- AlexandrB 3y agoMeans a lot more than a comment on Hacker News.
- catchnear4321 3y agoyour comment has been peer-reviewed. it was found to be subjective and unsupported.
- misnome 3y agoIs that a wild guess to “reinforce” your point or do you actually have knowledge that this is common and zero survivors happens freqently? Either that or it sounds like you are blaming the penguins for nesting somewhere historically stable..
- rz2k 3y agoWhat is their point? Careful readers will see the qualifier “parts” stick out like a sore thumb, look further, and find out this represents 4% of breeding pairs’ chicks.[1] Sensationalized headlines ruin the conversation. How many people in this post alone are talking about the quality of this coverage rather than how rapid increase in temperature causes extinctions and kicking the can down the road makes are problems larger and more expensive than sensibly addressing them now. [1] https://www.science.org/content/article/emperor-penguins-abandon-breeding-grounds-ice-melts-around-them https://www.science.org/content/article/emperor-penguins-aba...
- ClearlyLacking 3y ago"Recent efforts to predict emperor penguin population trends from forecasts of sea ice loss have painted a bleak picture, showing that if present rates of warming persist over 90% of emperor colonies will be quasi-extinct by the end of this century" It's a very real problem, we are only seeing the start of it.
- 28304283409234 3y agoHow about, instead of hoping for the best, we start assuming the worst. And for once act accordingly. It baffles me that people are willing to ignore a potential threat until the threat and impact have been proven completely, utterly and without even a shadow of a doubt.