This reads like “Disney” science: take some facts and spin them to be entertainment. I thought the same of this article where I thought the reporting was twisting facts to make a headline: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/lost-your...
I read a lot of astronomy journalism that I think is absolutely awful (one of the main reasons I made this account was to point out garbage articles/comments). I actually think that this is pretty good.
It mostly follows the paper (here's what looks like an earlier version of this paper that is easily available [1]), doesn't engage in too much hyperbole, isn't publicizing something widely outside of the consensus.
Disclaimer that I don't work on planetary formation/dynamics so am not an expert on this, but still, pretty impressed.
Here’s a 2019 preprint that concludes “We show that cigar-shaped models suffer from a fine-tuning problem and have only 16 per cent probability to produce light curve minima as deep as the ones present in `Oumuamua's light curve. Disc-shaped models, on the other hand, are very likely (at 91 per cent) to produce minima of the required depth.”
So it seems like there is still a lot of conjecture involved... Yet the National Geographic article misleads by showing an artists impression (pictures are truthy) while treating the elongated shape as fact on every line (the alternate disc model was also mentioned in original paper trying to deduct the shape, although the paper concluded it was less likely). Poor reporting IMHO.
I am not an astrophysicist, but this is the second Nat Geo article that I’ve read recently that has really failed my good reporting sniff test. Edit: failed to meet the high standards I expect from Nat Geo.
That's how National Geographic has been run for decades. Wrap up fluff journalism in a mystique of authority and strangeness to distract from the overall shallow nature of the writing.
Facile views wrapped up in easily digestible photo journalism essays, then never reviewing the topic again.
It could have been a lot worse. When Fox came in, it could have turned into a propaganda machine for fake science. Given the possible alternative, I'm happy with "fluffy."
I realize an iPhone 6+ is an old phone. But, this is a simple page with some simple text and simple images that is working so hard to track me that it is completely unreadable even though they really want me to read it.
Amazing service! Also loading the page with noscript as I do gives me a quick loading single white page with a narrow column of text. No fancy stuff or funny business. Just the article.
Heh, just to test it, I submitted this comment page, the space savings are pretty amazing: (original size of 14.3 kB to 23.3 kB) [-63%]. Also, something seems weird in the calculation, my browser shows "24KB transfers, 36.5KB of resources"
There was a discussion the other day about whether it's bad when HN gets derailed from TFA by incredibly minor details. I'm in favour of the tangents, which can often be more interesting than the primary topic - as is the case (for me) with your comment. Thanks for sharing :)
> The ʻokina has historically been represented in computer publications by the grave accent (`), the left single quotation mark (‘), or the apostrophe ('), especially when the correct typographical mark (ʻ) is not available.
Readit News
This reads like “Disney” science: take some facts and spin them to be entertainment. I thought the same of this article where I thought the reporting was twisting facts to make a headline: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/lost-your...
It mostly follows the paper (here's what looks like an earlier version of this paper that is easily available [1]), doesn't engage in too much hyperbole, isn't publicizing something widely outside of the consensus.
Disclaimer that I don't work on planetary formation/dynamics so am not an expert on this, but still, pretty impressed.
[1] https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/apophis2020/pdf/2018.pdf
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.03696
So it seems like there is still a lot of conjecture involved... Yet the National Geographic article misleads by showing an artists impression (pictures are truthy) while treating the elongated shape as fact on every line (the alternate disc model was also mentioned in original paper trying to deduct the shape, although the paper concluded it was less likely). Poor reporting IMHO.
I am not an astrophysicist, but this is the second Nat Geo article that I’ve read recently that has really failed my good reporting sniff test. Edit: failed to meet the high standards I expect from Nat Geo.
Facile views wrapped up in easily digestible photo journalism essays, then never reviewing the topic again.
It's always been fluffy pap.
https://beta.trimread.com/articles/11158
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Oku7kQ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOkina
Deleted Comment
Yes, indeed
It's the funniest sound I ever heard! I can't understand a single word. Is he serious or is he playing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHvhRenwbb0
Not difficult at all.
Deleted Comment