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

221–230 of 247 posts

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#221

Post by robocat »

andrew_ wrote: post #188
ikt wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how did you find them? I don't believe you!

Organically. Immediate circle started one or two groups, and then was told about or invited to others via the Kevin Bacon effect.

I would like to see a moderation system of vouching for new users (or perhaps individual content) where you are penalised if those users post bad content.

‘Invite only’ works for small groups. For more than say 50 people, a planned incursion can occur by getting one mole in and that mole inviting others.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#222

Post by 8note »

uejfiweun wrote: post #195
coldtea wrote: post #192

It's not Scientific American. It's every medium. The NYT of 2022 is not the NYT of the past, and WP is not the WP of Watergate. And it goes beyond the ideological issues. In fact, the same declining quality (though not with the same specifics of course) is the case in every industry where they're fighting for increasingly thinner profit margins. It was the same back in the day (as far back as Mark Twain, Hearst/"Kane…

I agree corporate journalism is a pathetic shell of its former self that can only race bait to get clicks. But I do think there is some good journalism going on in the independent scene. For example, Glenn Greenwald still puts out good investigative journalism, and there is a lot of good content on substack as well. I think this is the future, it just makes sense. In the past, journalists had to group into big organi…

The point of journalism is still to make money, not to get the message out.

You're only going to get "good" reporting if it pays well to do so, and pays poorly to do "bad" reporting

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#223

Post by 0xBDB »

WalterBright wrote: post #92
PhantomGremlin wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes the media does it, which is a good thing for people with different middle names. Here are a few examples I thought of. Not good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy

LHO just seemed to call himself Lee Oswald, indeed the 3 names seem to be a media creation.

I was always under the impression that this is general practice with infamous people, to avoid mix-ups which might get the media outlet sued, however frivolously. But this may not be the case, including with Oswald, who apparently used his middle name sometimes.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughn...

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#224

Post by 8note »

colordrops wrote: post #22
andrewclunn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how is advocating for a system that removes all social pressures towards healthy lifestyles a fix or even improvement? You assume people are incapable of nuanced discussion, yet you appeal to a vague "it's complicated" approach that merely avoids the issues.

You are falling for the same binary thinking I'm criticizing. I never said anything about removing social pressures towards healthy lifestyles. I'm not supporting the woke "fat acceptance" stance. I can't stand acceptance of being fat actually and am all for fat shaming. It's a horrible drag on our health system and society. I'm advocating for BOTH systemic and personal responsibility. Why is that such a crazy stance…

What makes you think fat shaming is effective for reducing the number of fat people? Within the regime of shaming, obesity has increased a whole ton.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#225

Post by 8note »

raegis wrote: post #45
commoner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct answer to the interviewer's question is to point out that the lowest cost-per-calorie foods tend to be non-meat foods such as grains and legumes. Switching from meats to healthy non-meat foods can save money in many cases. If the diet change includes a reduction of red or processed meats, switching to healthy non-meat foods would also improve the person's health and reduce their healthcare expenses in the…

Reducing or eliminating fructose is a better answer, I think. Anti-fat messaging (in food) has resulted in food producers reducing fat but increasing fructose content for decades, with an associated rise in obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Check out the lecture "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" by Robert Lustig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=179s

Remove the profit incentive from selling food is what we really need; that or charging food producers for the bad health impacts they create.

After removing fructose, food producers will find a new thing to make people want to eat more, ad infinitum.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#226

Post by lazyeye »

nucleogenesis wrote: post #191
lazyeye wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woke people only ever want a blank slate to which they can apply their ideology. They wont tolerate nature intruding. Why is there no neuro-psychology component in gender studies for example?

Because gender is a made up thing informed by social norms. Not all societies abide the gender binary. Gender studies are a sociological study because there is no gender without some social structure enforcing it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society Go learn in some depth of “woke” ideology before getting fired up online about it. Learn it from “woke” people and talk with them and take it seriousl…

Actually youre the one with the simplistic, black and white thinking so please lay off the lazy slurs.

Gender has an enormous impact on the human body so the idea that the brain (the most important organ of all) is 100% neutral and unaffected by gender is simply ridiculous.

To try to argue this is pure ideology. Anyone with a bit of commonsense and life experience would agree.

For anyone interested Harald Eia (Norwegian comedian) has done some interesting videos on the topic.

Apparently these videos were significant enough to influence govt policy in Norway

https://vimeo.com/user5971760

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#227

Post by boppo1 »

tonguez wrote: post #211
dragonwriter wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Glenn Greenwald still puts out good investigative journalism Everything I’ve seen from Glenn (to be fair, that's filtered by what his fans make popular on other platforms, because I’m not actively following him) since he shed traditional journalistic standards enforced by editorial oversight at the outlet he founded has been fairly naked ideological hackery that demonstrates why he was wise to establish traditional…

He left The Intercept because The Intercept wouldn't publish Glenn's story about Hunter Biden because you're not allowed to criticize Biden because TLAs want Biden. Greenwald obviously is mostly known for exposing the crimes of TLAs.

TLAs?

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#228

Post by [deleted] »

maxlybbert wrote: post #147
bmitc wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was not and am not commenting on the Medium article. I was referring to the Scientific American article. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l... For me, it's enough to think something is seriously wrong there at Scientific American. The more I think about it, the more the article makes little sense to me. I can't even understand what it has to do with E.O. Wilson. The timing of the article w…

It’s common for a media company to have a file and even a pre-written obituary for famous people. That way there’s no need to cobble together an obituary hours after getting word that, say, Steve Jobs has died. I take it that Scientific American didn’t have a pre-written obituary for E.O. Wilson.

[deleted]

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#229

Post by boppo1 »

nucleogenesis wrote: post #191
lazyeye wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woke people only ever want a blank slate to which they can apply their ideology. They wont tolerate nature intruding. Why is there no neuro-psychology component in gender studies for example?

Because gender is a made up thing informed by social norms. Not all societies abide the gender binary. Gender studies are a sociological study because there is no gender without some social structure enforcing it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society Go learn in some depth of “woke” ideology before getting fired up online about it. Learn it from “woke” people and talk with them and take it seriousl…

Please see my recent post history about losing a woke friend. I have talked with the woke and taken them seriously. "Wokeness" includes progressive ideas that are important to pursue, but it is also a platform for craziness.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#230

Post by coldtea »

boppo1 wrote: post #227
tonguez wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He left The Intercept because The Intercept wouldn't publish Glenn's story about Hunter Biden because you're not allowed to criticize Biden because TLAs want Biden. Greenwald obviously is mostly known for exposing the crimes of TLAs.

TLAs?

Three letter agencies
Post reply on HN