3 ms·
> Do you see the irony? What better describes social media? Social media is not one thing. You've got multiple people in this thread who know the subject, in d
by timr 3y ago
> Do you see the irony? What better describes social media?
Social media is not one thing. You've got multiple people in this thread who know the subject, in detail, telling you that the headline is wrong. These aren't youtube video comments.
> Ironically, that's what the OP is about; that was the point of their research.
Yes, I know. That's why I wrote that. The research is about a relatively obscure technical problem. The headline made it sound like a revolutionary breakthrough in antibiotic development.
- wolverine876 3y ago> Social media is not one thing. Fair enough, but science journalism is not just one thing. > You've got multiple people in this thread who know the subject, in detail, telling you that the headline is wrong. That appears on every HN discussion of anything. It's not a signal of wrongness or rightness, any more than the color of the banner at the top - if it's orange, the OP must be obviously wrong!
- hedora 3y agoIt turns out there’s usually a group of HN commenters that specialize in whatever the topic is and are more qualified to discuss the technical contributions than the person that paraphrased a university press release.
- wolverine876 3y agoHmmm ... that is not my experience of it. My experience is that the actual experts' comments are half-way down the page, and in fields I do know about, most of the comments range from amateurish to BS. The omnipresent take-down comments are disputed by the experts, usually. Many of them follow the same formulaic 'take-down' patterns that reflect amateurism and ignorance trying to look smart, such as railing against sample sizes, etc. Also, your comment is a baseless claim - like the strawperson journalists you rail against - that HN commenters are more informed than the authors. I expect that very few HN commenters are as informed.