3 ms·
For what it's worth, the nautilus articles normally link to the research and it's generally one of the first few links if it isn't the first link in the article
by CuriousCosmic 2y ago
For what it's worth, the nautilus articles normally link to the research and it's generally one of the first few links if it isn't the first link in the article. This article links to the research in this text:
> The research was published in the [Journal of Human Evolution] last week.
The link in question is this one (https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S004724842400085X https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S00472484240008...) but it points to the following DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2024.103577 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2024.103577
- zug_zug 2y agoYeah I guess my hot-take is that exaggerating summary articles maybe shouldn't exist at all, or not be shared on HN. What I've found is that, and this article is a great example, the summarizing article is more likely to lead to a less accurate picture than no article at all. "Puberty hasn't changed" is not what this article concludes. And rightly so, because that's much too broad a statement do draw from taking 13 paleolithic skeletons.