4 ms·

The paper is publicly available at the first link in the article, which includes various photos of the different fluorescent 'layers' https://www.cell.com/cell/

The paper is publicly available at the first link in the article, which includes various photos of the different fluorescent 'layers' https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(23)01227-8 https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(23)01227-8.

observationist 3y ago
That doesn't make up for the fact that an article about a visual subject matter is conspicuously missing images. Show, don't tell. A picture is worth a thousand words. {insert relevant "pictures are important, yo!" quote here} It means the author, Anne Trafton, didn't give enough of a shit to bother with spending an extra couple minutes doing something right - making the information more complete, accessible, or compelling - but instead did whatever bare minimum was required.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  > It means the author [...] didn't give a shit Woah woah woah that's an extreme take. You don't know why she did what she did. You are pretending that something subjective (what type of media included in this article) is objective evidence that the author doesn't care about doing things the right way. That's quite a leap.
  - observationist 3y ago
    I can see evidence of objectively better crafted articles on the site, so I can assume there are no policies or rules in the way of doing it better. I notice and appreciate when there are images accompanying articles and discussion about visual things. It bugs the hell out of me when the author doesn't bother and the editor just allows it. I might not be psychic and know to 10 degrees of precision exactly what was going on in their heads, but I have met people before. I feel extremely confident in assuming things about people when it comes to them not caring over some other plausible reason for not doing something well, especially when doing something well requires effort. Even if it's just a little bit of effort, like a couple minutes using screen capture and copy and paste tools. If they gave a shit, it would have been done right, and there would be pictures accompanying the article. If the editor had high standards, they wouldn't allow pictureless articles about visual topics. There are no pictures, ergo. They wanted the clicks. There's no compelling reason to think any better of them than to assume they did whatever bare minimum was necessary, as an assignment or something else to be checked off a list. Maybe they'll see the commentary and think "gee, that makes sense to have pictures!" and for the rest of their writing career, they'll be better. Or not. Either way, I feel fine calling it out.

observationist 3y ago

That doesn't make up for the fact that an article about a visual subject matter is conspicuously missing images. Show, don't tell. A picture is worth a thousand words. {insert relevant "pictures are important, yo!" quote here} It means the author, Anne Trafton, didn't give enough of a shit to bother with spending an extra couple minutes doing something right - making the information more complete, accessible, or compelling - but instead did whatever bare minimum was required.

DiggyJohnson 3y ago
> It means the author [...] didn't give a shit Woah woah woah that's an extreme take. You don't know why she did what she did. You are pretending that something subjective (what type of media included in this article) is objective evidence that the author doesn't care about doing things the right way. That's quite a leap.
- observationist 3y ago
  I can see evidence of objectively better crafted articles on the site, so I can assume there are no policies or rules in the way of doing it better. I notice and appreciate when there are images accompanying articles and discussion about visual things. It bugs the hell out of me when the author doesn't bother and the editor just allows it. I might not be psychic and know to 10 degrees of precision exactly what was going on in their heads, but I have met people before. I feel extremely confident in assuming things about people when it comes to them not caring over some other plausible reason for not doing something well, especially when doing something well requires effort. Even if it's just a little bit of effort, like a couple minutes using screen capture and copy and paste tools. If they gave a shit, it would have been done right, and there would be pictures accompanying the article. If the editor had high standards, they wouldn't allow pictureless articles about visual topics. There are no pictures, ergo. They wanted the clicks. There's no compelling reason to think any better of them than to assume they did whatever bare minimum was necessary, as an assignment or something else to be checked off a list. Maybe they'll see the commentary and think "gee, that makes sense to have pictures!" and for the rest of their writing career, they'll be better. Or not. Either way, I feel fine calling it out.