3 ms·
> The abstract linked from the article. Right, I take back the bit about the scientific background, which was unnecessarily harsh. It’s still a meaningless ter
by kergonath 2y ago
> The abstract linked from the article.
Right, I take back the bit about the scientific background, which was unnecessarily harsh. It’s still a meaningless term.
> Hope they update Wikipedia.
An article using the term is not a reason to update anything. The definition they use is that it reflects “an exceptionally low amount of visible light”, and they refer to two other articles that do not include a formal definition either. It’s a poorly-defined term used to hype one’s research. This sort of thing is unfortunately common in science and not in itself a reason to get excited.
- tptacek 2y agoThe title of the journal article the story is based on, from the Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology, is "Ultrablack color in velvet ant cuticle". So, no, I don't think this reflects anything about the author of the article. Sorry.
- kergonath 2y agoYeah, as I said, unnecessarily harsh. I also sometimes use marketing terms in my articles, and it’s not great.
- llamaimperative 2y ago"Ultra-black is a meaningless term... [insert extremely strong opinions about what is or is not truly ultra-black]."
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- absummer 2y ago> Classic HN would be more like: > "Actually, the reflectance properties of biological ultrablack materials have been well-studied. Here's a 2019 paper in Nature showing that certain deep-sea fish achieve 0.05% reflectance through specialized melanosomes. The ant's 1% is remarkable for a terrestrial organism due to [technical explanation]. Here's some interesting papers on biomimetic applications..." > Instead we get: "Wikipedia says..." > The contrast is stark: > Old HN: Deep technical discussions, sources, papers > New: "I checked Wikipedia and counted words" > It's like watching someone try to critique a research paper by counting how many times they used the word "quantum" rather than engaging with the actual quantum mechanics. > The "Wikipedia says..." on HN feels as out of place as someone posting "FIRST!!!" would have been in the old days. It's such a perfect example of discussion culture decay.
- kergonath 2y agoI don’t know what you’re on about. The article and its references did not provide a non-ambiguous definition. Instead, we have “highly absorptive colors”. I did not claim that Wikipedia was the arbiter of truth, but in the absence of any definition in the article it’s fair game. I am not going to go through a literature review for this, either. I already spent an order of magnitude more time to read that article’s references than you took to write… this.
- absummer 2y ago> I don’t know what you’re on about. Yes, that is partly my fault.