4 ms·
> Classic HN would be more like: > "Actually, the reflectance properties of biological ultrablack materials have been well-studied. Here's a 2019 paper in Natu
by 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.