3 ms·

I mean, yes, but her opinion still means more than a random science journalist's.

refulgentis 3y ago
Honestly, I'm watching a bunch of people punch down at imaginary people, I'm not sure there's really anything here than whining about a good article and bizarre irrational stack ranking
- andrewflnr 3y ago
  I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, but there's nothing imaginary about how bad some "science journalists" are, and the notion of a bunch of HN commenters "punching down" at either journalists or physicists with much bigger platforms than we have is dubious.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    Some people reflexively do this "I'm not sure I know what you're talking about" type lead-in, then can't help themself from replying anyway. I laugh at the silly attempt at negging and move on with my life. Why? - Comment is +5 - even though it cuts against the grain - because it was such a boring boorish thread. - you demonstrated you know exactly what I'm talking about.
    - andrewflnr 3y ago
      I knew you were saying one of a couple rather weird things. I still don't know which, but I thought the substance of my comment addressed all of them and you haven't bothered to respond to that, so I guess my point stands? We were both nitpicking, so you don't get to claim the high ground.
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        I'm not arguing with you at all, it wouldn't make any sense to, you're not making any claim other than imagining I claimed articles where the journalist doesn't know anything about the topic are always good. Recap: I observed the thread was absurd because: - it opened complaining about the science journalist writer who didn't know the topic. - after it was resolved the author wasn't a science journalist or someone who didn't know anything, people were arguing about the stack-ranking of the imaginary science journalist Now you're here, continuing to argue against a strawman for no discernable reason. We all get it, you and some other people are making sure we understand we're wrong, it can be bad when people write things they don't know about.
        andrewflnr 3y ago
        > you're not making any claim other than imagining I claimed articles where the journalist doesn't know anything about the topic are always good. I definitely never argued or even believed any such thing. I started off in this (granted, rather silly) thread with a lukewarm defense of Hossenfelder, then you took a weird tangent on it and I disagreed with your framing (or what I could grok of it). Maybe you have me confused with someone else?

Honestly, I'm watching a bunch of people punch down at imaginary people, I'm not sure there's really anything here than whining about a good article and bizarre irrational stack ranking

andrewflnr 3y ago
I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, but there's nothing imaginary about how bad some "science journalists" are, and the notion of a bunch of HN commenters "punching down" at either journalists or physicists with much bigger platforms than we have is dubious.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  Some people reflexively do this "I'm not sure I know what you're talking about" type lead-in, then can't help themself from replying anyway. I laugh at the silly attempt at negging and move on with my life. Why? - Comment is +5 - even though it cuts against the grain - because it was such a boring boorish thread. - you demonstrated you know exactly what I'm talking about.
  - andrewflnr 3y ago
    I knew you were saying one of a couple rather weird things. I still don't know which, but I thought the substance of my comment addressed all of them and you haven't bothered to respond to that, so I guess my point stands? We were both nitpicking, so you don't get to claim the high ground.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      I'm not arguing with you at all, it wouldn't make any sense to, you're not making any claim other than imagining I claimed articles where the journalist doesn't know anything about the topic are always good. Recap: I observed the thread was absurd because: - it opened complaining about the science journalist writer who didn't know the topic. - after it was resolved the author wasn't a science journalist or someone who didn't know anything, people were arguing about the stack-ranking of the imaginary science journalist Now you're here, continuing to argue against a strawman for no discernable reason. We all get it, you and some other people are making sure we understand we're wrong, it can be bad when people write things they don't know about.
      - andrewflnr 3y ago
        > you're not making any claim other than imagining I claimed articles where the journalist doesn't know anything about the topic are always good. I definitely never argued or even believed any such thing. I started off in this (granted, rather silly) thread with a lukewarm defense of Hossenfelder, then you took a weird tangent on it and I disagreed with your framing (or what I could grok of it). Maybe you have me confused with someone else?