8 ms·
Scientists discover why dozens of endangered elephants died
- l1n 3y ago[flagged]
- userbinator 3y agotl;dr: infected by bacteria. One wonders whether giving them prophylactic antibiotics may work well, or turn out to have other effects in the future.
- TheSpiceIsLife 3y agoYou tried, but "bacterial infection" still isn't enough. Why did they get a blood born bacterial infection? Maybe I'll just read the article.
- happytoexplain 3y agoWhy are you making it sound like I shouldn't read the details/context?
- primax 3y agoBecause it's a click bait title and many, myself included hate them
- junon 3y agoElephants died. Title is clickbait how?
- uoaei 3y agoClickbait is not the same as sensationalism, though sometimes they overlap. "Clickbait" is literally correct here since they are withholding precisely "why dozens of endangered elephants dropped dead" in the title itself, so you are baited into clicking through.
- samplatt 3y agoBy presenting a mystery without any reason why else you might be interested other than the fact that it _might_ be a mystery. Many people prefer titles to be an accurate and concise summary of the article, rather than relying on emotional tricks to get you to visit an external website find out what it's actually about. On a news aggregator site like HN, an accurate title is nicer because it respects your time and lets you choose your content. Mysteries are interesting, so humans want to solve them. If the article turns out to be something uninteresting or something not to do with the headline, then the reader has wasted their time and the author and the website is being dishonest and being rewarded for it by clicks.
- wredue 3y agoClickbait usually has titles like: A dozen endangered elephants died. The reason will shock you!
- samplatt 3y agoThat's the same thing, but presented even more bluntly as an open appeal to your baser desire for a mystery, but it's still clickbait nonetheless - it's presenting itself as a mystery without any further reason information other than "elephants died". "Endangered" is emotional content without any further information; all elephants are endangered (or at the very least vulnerable) so this is another hint that the title is emotional (clickbait) driven rather than a useful summary. The Guardian aims itself at people who like to consider themselves more intelligent than the average bear. The clickbait will therefore be toned down a little. Some people still prefer it to not exist at all, if possible.
- jrflowers 3y agoI cannot stand these clickbait titles that explain the content of the article. I only read news where the article is zalgo text renderings of Bukowski quotes. Real news should have titles so off putting and repulsive that only geniuses in the throws of lunacy might dare click. What kind of baby society has conditioned us to expect “short summaries” as the title to an article? The only appropriate title for this article is a word-for-word copy-and-paste of the entire text of the book 1984.
- myself248 3y agoYes. "Dozens of endangered elephants killed by septacemia, scientists find" would be the non-clickbait title.
- DonHopkins 3y agoSo you want a complete summary of the article in the title so you can discuss it without actually clicking on the link and bothering to read it? You're not even discussing the article, just its title. Shallow, boring, and formulaic. It would be more interesting if you were whining about the article's html formatting. Edit: How am I attacking the character of the poster? I described his post, not his personality or belief system. And now you're doing worse than what he's doing, posting uninteresting off topic personal attacks that aren't even true. If you don't have anything to say about elephants, then don't say anything. Your time would be better spend looking up and learning what the term "strawman" means.
- zmgsabst 3y ago[flagged]
- happytoexplain 3y agoI'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about the parent's tone (though I think "attack the character" is not really accurate). However: > Please do better. This specific phrase, especially as a standalone sentence, comes off as highly superior/patronizing. It's almost exclusively something you would say to a child, or as a humble resolution about yourself.
- zmgsabst 3y ago[flagged]
- serf 3y ago>So you want a complete summary of the article in the title that's literally the point of an articles' title, the idea that you think it's somehow strange makes it seem as if clickbait strategies have become so ingrained as to appear invisible. Titles aren't meant to be gamified and reduced into the shortest possible quip that will produce hits, they're supposed to aid in summary of the content. They're supposed to be shallow and formulaic; they're a tool for indexing and summarization, not a tool for generative publicity. "Septicemia - possibly exacerbated by climate change - kills dozens of elephants." vs. "Scientists discover elephants TRUE KILLER, CLICK HERE NOW!" 'Shallow, boring, formulaic' is a good thing and it keeps with thousands of years of academic tradition and good sense.
- happytoexplain 3y agoThat seems unnecessarily presumptuous/hostile. I hate click bait too, this just didn't strike me as having that tone. Sometimes I think we jump a little too quick to negativity about every little thing. E.g. in my opinion, "not summarizing the conclusion" is only one trait of click bait, not the definition.
- DonHopkins 3y agoI hate coming here to discuss the article and learn about elephants, but only finding low quality irrelevant uninteresting bitchy posts like yours instead of relevant thoughtful comments and fascinating elephant facts. If there's not already a subreddit about whining about clickbait, then you should start one and go there. Edit: Then take your own advice, downvote my comment, delete your own comment, and move on, to serve as an example.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wffurr 3y agoJust downvote and/or flag and move on. Posting in the thread (like this, which I almost never do) doesn’t help.
- jancsika 3y agoI just read the Wikipedia entry for "Clickbait." While one could technically derive a stark, bizarrely restrictive definition to be a link that requires one to click through to satisfy one's curiosity, any good faith reading would note that the whole point of the term is to characterize links which are also sensationalized and deceptive (upon reading click-through content). The 2nd paragraph makes this explicit, comparing click-bait to pre-digital "bait-and-switch," which is-- again-- a deceptive practice. Being annoyed at having to click a link isn't the same as being deceived into clicking one.
- kidgorgeous 3y agothanks
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- gerdesj 3y agoThat's quite facile. "Elephants of all ages and both sexes were affected, with many walking in circles before dying suddenly, collapsing on their faces." "Other things experts tested for included cyanide, which some people use to poison elephants" That's quite traumatic. Skip the click - really?
- refurb 3y ago[flagged]
- DonHopkins 3y agoWhy don't you skip posting anything instead of discussing something that has nothing to do with the topic. Your "contribution" is also worse than clickbait.
- jancsika 3y agoIn which which this article would be an exception to your claim. 1. Headline suggests an answer 2. Content of article delivers the actual answer 3. There are even links provided to previous articles showing that this had been a bona fide mystery until recently Clickbait is stuff like a youtube video titled "OMG Car market just flipped!" and it's a 15 minute video where a podcaster gets told by his dad various reasons to believe the car market hasn't really flipped yet.
- contrarian1234 3y ago＂1. Headline suggests an answer 2. Content of article delivers the actual answer＂ that's literally the definition of click bait .... They bait you into clicking to get the answer They could have instead changed the title to include the answer "Scientists discover the death of dozens of endangered elephants was due to blood poisoning" But then no one would click, bc most people wouldn't care to learn more. And then the Guardian wouldn't get its sweet sweet ad revenue
- swells34 3y ago
- DonHopkins 3y agoCame here after reading the article hoping for an interesting discussion of it, and was disappointed to find this thread instead. Next time do better, or do nothing. Because what you did this time is worse than clickbait.
- cratermoon 3y agoThe article notes "the Pasteurella bacteria generally lives harmlessly" in antelopes, but became more virulent, possibly because of above-average temperatures. There's also a mention that the elephants were likely stressed because of drought conditions. Those facts suggest a link to climate change, and could be a bit of a canary-in-the-coalmine for humans and infectious diseases.
- Pigalowda 3y agoThe elephants died of sepsis related to Pasteurella bacteria, the same bacteria which killed 200,000 antelopes in Kazakhstan. The bacteria is normally commensurate in the pharynx/tonsils however a virulence factor or increased infectiousness was gained somehow (possibly ambient temperature related).
- Sparkyte 3y agoMight not be, it could be bacterial evolution. While temperatures shouldn't be ruled out bacteria and viruses evolve much more rapidly compared to multi-cellular organisms. In fact DNA of multi-cellular organisms are often altered by them. Not by much, but enough we can track if our ancestors experienced the bubonic plague in DNA. I think it is possible to assume they acclimated and became stronger maybe due to the introduction of fertilizers. United States is experiencing problems with algae blooms and this is typically downstream of water contaminated with fertilizer. Higher than what typically would be organically washed down stream.
- nerdponx 3y agoMy understanding of bacterial disease is that generally the disease itself is caused by bacteria emitting various toxins, either as waste materials or as part of their defense system. Does it make sense that a commensal bacterium would evolve into something dangerous?
- Sparkyte 3y agoDepends on the environment. We all evolve due to our surrounding environment. Being stronger doesn't necessarily mean defensive, it might mean longer life cycles. More waste as you said.
- vkou 3y agoIt could, evolution is a drunkard's walk. It would be unlikely to outcompete its commensal siblings that don't damage the host.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- newmana 3y ago[flagged]
- ggurface 3y agoCan you explain what the linked article has to do with the stated cause of the elephants dying, septicaemia?
- jncfhnb 3y agoSure. From the article: > Elephants are highly sociable animals, and also were likely stressed due to the drought conditions at the time, which made such an outbreak more likely. > Scientists believe the Pasteurella bacteria generally lives harmlessly in the tonsils of some, if not all, of the antelopes. An unusual temperature increase to 37C, however, caused the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream, where it caused septicaemia.
- smnrchrds 3y agoI think the parent comment is referring to this paragraph: > Pasteurella bacteria has previously been linked to the sudden death of about 200,000 saiga antelopes in Kazakhstan – an incident that researchers believe could shed light on what happened to the elephant herds. Scientists believe the Pasteurella bacteria generally lives harmlessly in the tonsils of some, if not all, of the antelopes. An unusual temperature increase to 37C, however, caused the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream, where it caused septicaemia. I read it as the effect of body temperature, but the parent has interpreted it as air temperature. I am not sure which interpretation is correct.
- chnx 3y agoIt's air temperature according to a linked article (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/25/mass-mortality-events-animal-conservation-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/25/mass-mor...): > They concluded that a rise in temperature to 37C and an increase in humidity above 80% in the previous few days had stimulated the bacteria to pass into the bloodstream where it caused haemorrhagic septicaemia, or blood poisoning.
- pvaldes 3y agoPrevious related thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23707920 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23707920
- Ographer 3y agoI find it so sad that 84% of the remaining African savannah elephants live in protected areas and yet their population is declining 8% per year, showing that our conversation efforts are not enough and less effective every year. This is the most massive and iconic land animal on Earth with plenty of public support and funding, this should be one of the easiest ones to keep track of and protect. What does this say about our ability to prevent mass extinction of other species?
- dghughes 3y agoAnd Africa is huge! It's not like they are crammed in on a small continent. The entire USA including Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico etc. is about 25% the size of the African continent.