5 ms·

This is a very click-bait-ey title. Maybe it could be changed to something more appropriate for HN? edit: This post used to read as "The melting of Antarctica

by orik 12y ago

This is a very click-bait-ey title. Maybe it could be changed to something more appropriate for HN? edit: This post used to read as "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse." It has since been changed.

hackuser 12y ago
> This is a very click-bait-ey title. Maybe it could be changed to something more appropriate for HN? It's the actual story title. Since Bezos bought them, my impression is that the Washington Post has published much more click-bait and strident writing. It's sad to see that from what used to be one of the best news sources in the world. Ten years ago there were three top-notch serious news sources in the U.S. IMHO, the Post, the NY Times, and the Wall St Journal. The Journal was purchased by News Corporation (who also own Fox News, the former News of the World, and other beacons of credibility), the Post seems to be slipping; if the NY Times doesn't survive we could have a very serious problem. Without quality, credible, independent information, how can the public have any power?
- dang 12y ago
  The HN guidelines ask submitters to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait. Since this one was the latter, we shortened it.
- iterationx 12y ago
  NYT isn't credible.
tjradcliffe 12y ago
The headline accurately reflects the content of the article, which is a hysterical mishmash of speculation that does a massive disservice to the science. We "may" have learned about something that "could" happen "if" something else turns out to be true. Antarctic melting is a particularly nasty consequence of anthopogenic climate change. It's a fairly robust first-order prediction of almost any analysis that gets anthropogenic heat balances correct--so unlike almost all other detailed predictions, there is a good chance of it happening--and the consequences, apart from maybe submerging Florida, are unequivocally bad for humans. But in a debate as emotionally charged as the one over climate change and what to do about it, the last thing we need is the Washington Post ranting on in purely speculative terms. If a friend told you, "Ten years from now, you may remember 2014 as the year that you first learned that I may have gotten a new job. Meanwhile, 2015 could be the year of the double whammy — when you learned the same about our buddy Joe, which could set in motion a road trip," you would probably look at them funny and say, "Hey, why are you telling me all this stuff that may or may nor or could or could not or might or might not happen as if it's the most important thing in the world? It sounds kind of pretentious and stupid."

by orik 12y ago

hackuser 12y ago

> This is a very click-bait-ey title. Maybe it could be changed to something more appropriate for HN? It's the actual story title. Since Bezos bought them, my impression is that the Washington Post has published much more click-bait and strident writing. It's sad to see that from what used to be one of the best news sources in the world. Ten years ago there were three top-notch serious news sources in the U.S. IMHO, the Post, the NY Times, and the Wall St Journal. The Journal was purchased by News Corporation (who also own Fox News, the former News of the World, and other beacons of credibility), the Post seems to be slipping; if the NY Times doesn't survive we could have a very serious problem. Without quality, credible, independent information, how can the public have any power?

dang 12y ago
The HN guidelines ask submitters to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait. Since this one was the latter, we shortened it.
iterationx 12y ago
NYT isn't credible.

tjradcliffe 12y ago

The headline accurately reflects the content of the article, which is a hysterical mishmash of speculation that does a massive disservice to the science. We "may" have learned about something that "could" happen "if" something else turns out to be true. Antarctic melting is a particularly nasty consequence of anthopogenic climate change. It's a fairly robust first-order prediction of almost any analysis that gets anthropogenic heat balances correct--so unlike almost all other detailed predictions, there is a good chance of it happening--and the consequences, apart from maybe submerging Florida, are unequivocally bad for humans. But in a debate as emotionally charged as the one over climate change and what to do about it, the last thing we need is the Washington Post ranting on in purely speculative terms. If a friend told you, "Ten years from now, you may remember 2014 as the year that you first learned that I may have gotten a new job. Meanwhile, 2015 could be the year of the double whammy — when you learned the same about our buddy Joe, which could set in motion a road trip," you would probably look at them funny and say, "Hey, why are you telling me all this stuff that may or may nor or could or could not or might or might not happen as if it's the most important thing in the world? It sounds kind of pretentious and stupid."