Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 247 posts

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#161

Post by andreskytt »

jimkleiber wrote: post #141
ayngg wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A similar thread could be the proliferation of literature meant to help identify and condemn witches with the invention of the printing press, which greatly influenced the witch hunt moral panic that followed. In contrast, telephones don't amplify messages in the same way, and radio had the drawback of being temporary since broadcasts couldn't easily be recorded and distributed like pamphlets and books.

Oh yeah, the witch hunts! Such an experiment through which we're living, giving people megaphones to communicate to almost anyone on the planet, whether 1-to-1, 1-to-few, or 1-to-many. And as you said, have it be recorded! What I'm typing here from my kitchen table will be sent 'round the world to however many people who are reading now...but will continue to be sent to those people for as long as this website exists…

Goodness, indeed. But, in the context of memes, this means ideas no longer have to be beneficial to their human hosts in order to proliferate. It used to be that you’d have to be at least moderately well-to-do (thus, capable financially and biologically) for extended periods of time in order for your ideas to appear in print and be spread. That is no longer the case: an idea might be deadly or ruinous within hours and still have enough time to go viral.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#162

Post by jimkleiber »

andreskytt wrote: post #161
jimkleiber wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah, the witch hunts! Such an experiment through which we're living, giving people megaphones to communicate to almost anyone on the planet, whether 1-to-1, 1-to-few, or 1-to-many. And as you said, have it be recorded! What I'm typing here from my kitchen table will be sent 'round the world to however many people who are reading now...but will continue to be sent to those people for as long as this website exists…

Goodness, indeed. But, in the context of memes, this means ideas no longer have to be beneficial to their human hosts in order to proliferate. It used to be that you’d have to be at least moderately well-to-do (thus, capable financially and biologically) for extended periods of time in order for your ideas to appear in print and be spread. That is no longer the case: an idea might be deadly or ruinous within hours an…

I'm a little lost yet curious, what do you mean by "no longer have to be beneficial to their human hosts in order to proliferate"?

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#164

Post by Maursault »

derac wrote: post #98
Maursault wrote: post #33

I am not defending SJW in saying this, merely pointing out a clear and obvious fallacy and a shameful one considering those who submit and post here that use it. Employing the pejorative "woke" is an ad hominem fallacy because it doesn't speak to any argument, and it, in fact, says nothing at all. It ignores all argument for the sake of, I presume, insult. It is fundamentally tribalistic. Insulting or denigrating the…

The article uses the word woke twice, in reference to a specific sort of ideology. It isn't ad homing the author(s).

> The article uses the word woke twice

How many times is it used on this page?

> in reference to a specific sort of ideology

It is a pejorative reference, a slur intended to belittle and insult. That makes its use as such an ad hominem attack.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#165

Post by Maursault »

adolph wrote: post #120
Maursault wrote: post #33

I am not defending SJW in saying this, merely pointing out a clear and obvious fallacy and a shameful one considering those who submit and post here that use it. Employing the pejorative "woke" is an ad hominem fallacy because it doesn't speak to any argument, and it, in fact, says nothing at all. It ignores all argument for the sake of, I presume, insult. It is fundamentally tribalistic. Insulting or denigrating the…

> Employing the pejorative "woke" is an ad hominem fallacy because it doesn't speak to any argument, and it, in fact, says nothing at all. > So in trying to sound cool, the user ends up sounding racist or sexist, again, depending on context.

> > Employing the pejorative "woke" is an ad hominem fallacy because it doesn't speak to any argument, and it, in fact, says nothing at all.

> > So in trying to sound cool, the user ends up sounding racist or sexist, again, depending on context.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#166

Post by CodeGlitch »

dehrmann wrote: post #97
AareyBaba wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with NOVA in this TikTok era is the hour long format that was designed for broadcast TV. A topic with 10 minutes of material is stretched into 45 minutes with unnecessary drama and reenactments as filler. Like the kids say these days 'Ain't nobody got time for that'. I'd rather watch a 10 min video on Youtube that covers the same topic.

Youtubers stretch 30 seconds of material in 10 minutes.

You've not watched any Kurzgesagt have you? Sit down for a wild ride:

https://youtube.com/c/inanutshell

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#168

Post by mb7733 »

weeblewobble wrote: post #129

The opinion piece in question ( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l... ) strikes me as a restrained and sober attempt to explore the possibility that Wilson and others did bad science by presuming differences between races were due to genetics. Maybe you think the piece is wrong but it's just someone expressing some ideas, it's not intended to incite the woke mob or whatever. If anything, the…

The article called someone a racist, days after they passed away, without presenting any evidence of that fact. (The original article does not cite or refer to any of Wilson's work.) When asked on Twitter to provide some evidence of Wilson's racist views, the author of the article declined to provide any. She said that readers should look it up themselves. That isn't sober critique, it's slander.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#169

Post by watwut »

dehrmann wrote: post #97
AareyBaba wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with NOVA in this TikTok era is the hour long format that was designed for broadcast TV. A topic with 10 minutes of material is stretched into 45 minutes with unnecessary drama and reenactments as filler. Like the kids say these days 'Ain't nobody got time for that'. I'd rather watch a 10 min video on Youtube that covers the same topic.

Youtubers stretch 30 seconds of material in 10 minutes.

I don't find that to be true in general. I mean, some do that, but it is quote rare. Most don't try to force specific length at all. They are comfortable with super short videos and super long videos and anything in between.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#170

Post by scarab92 »

ageek123 wrote: post #110

A lot of domain-specific publications have become insufferably political; they are trading on their previous reputations but are now so ideological that they're basically worthless. A few that come to mind are Wired, MIT Technology Review, Vanity Fair, and Rolling Stone.

The current editor in chief's career as a journalist was largely writing clickbait style opinion pieces on identity politics for Slate etc.. I have no idea how they were deemed a suitable candidate to work for Scientific American, and it's no surprise her tenure has resulted in a rapid series of controversies.
Post reply on HN