3 ms·

Do you mind if I ask why you added "lol" to the end?

by squigz 3y ago

nickysielicki 3y ago
vibes, mostly
- protomolecule 3y ago
  What do you mean? Not a native speaker
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Fearmongering vibes. The cited paragraph puts down big numbers and scary words in random order to basically say "zomg the MaGnEtOsPhErE might climate change!". It's worthless, waste of time FUD. And on the off chance what they're saying has any scientific basis: They should have cited papers and explained the process in detail. That they didn't means this is still a waste of time FUD.
    - squigz 3y ago
      The only FUD I see here is this comment. They link to the paper they're referring to in the article.
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        I admit I didn't click this link at first given the seeming vapidness of the claim, and I will correct myself here that the passage cited is from the cited would-be paper rather than the linked article. I say "would-be" because that's what the article has to say about the would-be paper: >In the new theoretical paper, uploaded to the pre-print database arXiv in December 2023 but not yet peer-reviewed, Sierra Solter-Hunt, a doctoral candidate at the University of Iceland, proposed that this atmospheric spacecraft dust may compromise the magnetosphere — the part of Earth's magnetic field that extends into space and protects the atmosphere from solar radiation. So it's not a paper yet and namely hasn't been reviewed by peers, nor is the author a doctor (as in PhD) proper yet. This isn't something layman can refer to for information, not yet anyway. Given that, I stand by my initial claim that this is fearmongering and FUD. Nothing in there has been confirmed as worthy of our time to discuss.
        squigz 3y ago
        So they point out it's a theoretical paper that hasn't been peer-reviewed yet, but it's FUD? Interesting I assume you apply this standard to every arXiv paper posted here or referenced by a science publication?
        Dalewyn 3y ago
        If someone asks me to fear/panic/rage over something that is at best speculation as of publication? Yes I will call that FUD and be on my way. Doesn't matter if it's from Arxiv or 4chan.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
LeonB 3y ago
It’s an exemplar of “whistling past the grave yard” dark humour.

Do you mind if I ask why you added "lol" to the end?

by squigz 3y ago

Do you mind if I ask why you added "lol" to the end?

nickysielicki 3y ago

vibes, mostly

protomolecule 3y ago
What do you mean? Not a native speaker
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Fearmongering vibes. The cited paragraph puts down big numbers and scary words in random order to basically say "zomg the MaGnEtOsPhErE might climate change!". It's worthless, waste of time FUD. And on the off chance what they're saying has any scientific basis: They should have cited papers and explained the process in detail. That they didn't means this is still a waste of time FUD.
  - squigz 3y ago
    The only FUD I see here is this comment. They link to the paper they're referring to in the article.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      I admit I didn't click this link at first given the seeming vapidness of the claim, and I will correct myself here that the passage cited is from the cited would-be paper rather than the linked article. I say "would-be" because that's what the article has to say about the would-be paper: >In the new theoretical paper, uploaded to the pre-print database arXiv in December 2023 but not yet peer-reviewed, Sierra Solter-Hunt, a doctoral candidate at the University of Iceland, proposed that this atmospheric spacecraft dust may compromise the magnetosphere — the part of Earth's magnetic field that extends into space and protects the atmosphere from solar radiation. So it's not a paper yet and namely hasn't been reviewed by peers, nor is the author a doctor (as in PhD) proper yet. This isn't something layman can refer to for information, not yet anyway. Given that, I stand by my initial claim that this is fearmongering and FUD. Nothing in there has been confirmed as worthy of our time to discuss.
      - squigz 3y ago
        So they point out it's a theoretical paper that hasn't been peer-reviewed yet, but it's FUD? Interesting I assume you apply this standard to every arXiv paper posted here or referenced by a science publication?
        Dalewyn 3y ago
        If someone asks me to fear/panic/rage over something that is at best speculation as of publication? Yes I will call that FUD and be on my way. Doesn't matter if it's from Arxiv or 4chan.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

LeonB 3y ago

It’s an exemplar of “whistling past the grave yard” dark humour.