3 ms·

[flagged]

by s1artibartfast 2y ago

[flagged]

thuuuomas 2y ago
[flagged]
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  [flagged]
- dang 2y ago
  Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
foxglacier 2y ago
It's a super common behavior on social media. Worrying about what the stupid people might think if they see something. It's always some hypothetical group of lower-thinking people that they worry about, even when there's no sign of them existing. I'd say it's sometimes just pretending to be concerned about harm to others to make their position seem more important and right, and sometimes a fear that other people might believe different (thus obviously wrong and even immoral) things to themselves.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
dang 2y ago
You broke the site guidelines badly in this thread, more than once. Not cool. We ban accounts that do this and we've warned you more than once before. I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please fix this, that would be good. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I agree my point would have been better served attacking the message, not the messenger. I think there are few things less curious and less scientific than objecting to seeing mystery in the physical world. I dont think it is hyperbolic or fearmongering to use mystery in conjunction is science. For example, when describing a never before observed proton radiation belt, with unexplained duration. Or when most of that radiation belt is still uncharacterized and out of the detection range of instruments. Or when this never before seen proton belt is expected to last very long time, perhaps over a year, form a single transient storm [1]. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024JA033504 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202... I dont think it is appropriate to editorialize the titles of submission links to strip out authorial intent to highlight and share this mystery. That said, The above text would have made a more robust critique that is more in-line with the sight guidelines. I just got fired up reading how much people hate scientists for their passion[2] and their application causal reductionism https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42976134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42976134

[flagged]

thuuuomas 2y ago

[flagged]

s1artibartfast 2y ago
[flagged]
dang 2y ago
Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

foxglacier 2y ago

It's a super common behavior on social media. Worrying about what the stupid people might think if they see something. It's always some hypothetical group of lower-thinking people that they worry about, even when there's no sign of them existing. I'd say it's sometimes just pretending to be concerned about harm to others to make their position seem more important and right, and sometimes a fear that other people might believe different (thus obviously wrong and even immoral) things to themselves.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

dang 2y ago

You broke the site guidelines badly in this thread, more than once. Not cool. We ban accounts that do this and we've warned you more than once before. I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please fix this, that would be good. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I agree my point would have been better served attacking the message, not the messenger. I think there are few things less curious and less scientific than objecting to seeing mystery in the physical world. I dont think it is hyperbolic or fearmongering to use mystery in conjunction is science. For example, when describing a never before observed proton radiation belt, with unexplained duration. Or when most of that radiation belt is still uncharacterized and out of the detection range of instruments. Or when this never before seen proton belt is expected to last very long time, perhaps over a year, form a single transient storm [1]. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024JA033504 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202... I dont think it is appropriate to editorialize the titles of submission links to strip out authorial intent to highlight and share this mystery. That said, The above text would have made a more robust critique that is more in-line with the sight guidelines. I just got fired up reading how much people hate scientists for their passion[2] and their application causal reductionism https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42976134 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42976134