Pop-Sci Clickbait Criticism
Users criticize sensationalist headlines and misleading summaries in popular science journalism and press releases, repeatedly urging others to read the original peer-reviewed papers instead and suggesting HN links be updated accordingly.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
It's just typical pop sci journalism, with a click baity headline. Read the paper instead.
BBC article innit. Hardly a scientific paper.
Read the comment by mirimir, that is based in the research article instead of the press article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19694140
This title is pure clickbait. Any reason to not replace this BBC article with the "Nature News and Views" article? More informative, less dumbed down, but still accessible.https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00165-7The original journal article:https:/&
This is actually a terribly misleading pop-Sci writeup. Any chance mods can change the link to the actual study?http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6414/598
I literally cited the first hit from the most obvious google search. You sound curious and dissatisfied with the science reporting. Why don't you look up the paper, possibly use sci-hub if it isn't freely available, and actually read what the scientists say?
Why is this shit on Hacker News, let alone any sort of scientific publication?
I don't think such a great finding deserves an article in this tone. Posting the original paper instead would be more appropriate.
Link to the article, published in Nature, so we can judge it on its merits rather than via the NYT summary: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00957-yEither way awesome NYT article title.
A (terrible) article based on this (reasonable, in my layperson eyes) paper was recently discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25537049