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

241–247 of 247 posts

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#241

Post by nate_meurer »

greenyoda wrote: post #236
nate_meurer wrote: post #163

From the article: On her Twitter, the writer of the piece [Monica McLemore] wrote: "I purposively didn’t quote his work so you could read it for yourself." Not a good look for an aspiring scholar when her very first word is a misapprehension of everyday english.

"Purposive" is a word that I've never seen used before, but it's actually in the dictionary, and one of the meanings is as a synonym of the more usual "purposeful": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purposive

Well I'll be damned. Citations include Aldous Huxley's 1936 "Notes on Propaganda".

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#242

Post by antifa »

zo1 wrote: post #57
imiric wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> colleagues used epithets to denigrate him and other Black workers, told him to “go back to Africa” and left racist graffiti in the restrooms and a racist drawing in his workspace. This sounds like plain racism, nothing to do with wokeness.

I skimmed the article, and I can't tell if he was able to prove that they actually said those things (like a recording or email or corroborating witnesses). Otherwise I will go on a limb and say this person 100% made it up...because "wokeness". Also: "[...] three other witnesses (all non-Tesla contract employees) testified at trial that they regularly heard racial slurs (including the n-word) on the Fremont factory f…

> evidenceless conspiracy theory that black people are plotting against you

Literally anything to protect daddy musk from criticism.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#243

Post by chmod775 »

vwcx wrote: post #189
garyrob wrote: post #66

Something like 15 years ago I was at a conference and happened to sit at lunch table with a top editor of Scientific American. (Maybe the top one at the time, I don't remember.) I had been an enthusiastic subscriber for many years and still subscribed at that point, although I was concerned that it seemed to be dumbing itself down. I mentioned that to the editor. I forget the exact words I used, but they were an atte…

Let me ask you: would you expect the quality/tone/curation of r/science to hold up 50 years from now? Would you be surprised if, in 50 years, r/science didn't have the special sauce it has now? All things are ephemeral, especially in media. We're just marketed at to believe otherwise.

I had a look at this r/science and honestly can't fathom what that special sauce is supposed to be. A sizable portion of top level comments contain between 5 and 8 words with optional punctuation.

About 1/3rd of submissions and half of the comments appear to be more politically motivated than scientific and mostly US-centric. Just in the current top 10:

> Republican activists perceive Republican senators with very conservative voting records to be moderate if they do not support Donald Trump.

> Study: Emotionally manipulative political ads fail at swaying new voters, but excel at ensuring party loyalty.

> Conspiracy mentality (a willingness to endorse conspiracy theories) is more prevalent on the political right (a linear relation) and amongst both the left- and right-extremes (a curvilinear relation)

I wouldn't be surprised if most people posting there are from the US and from a certain fraction of the population at that. A rather small and uninteresting bubble compared to science as a whole.

Going back to your comment: Neither would I be surprised if r/science 50 years from now was run by a corporation RSCIENCE LTD, drip-feeding "curated" clickbait garbage in-between ads.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#244

Post by dale_glass »

finite_jest wrote: post #58
imiric wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> colleagues used epithets to denigrate him and other Black workers, told him to “go back to Africa” and left racist graffiti in the restrooms and a racist drawing in his workspace. This sounds like plain racism, nothing to do with wokeness.

Obviously no one should be harassed at their workplace. However, the wokeness here is manifested in the $130 million the California jury has awarded. Even the infamously excessive "hot coffee lawsuit" [1] looks unimpressive compared to this. I'm sure many of us would already be retired if we could claim even a fraction of that for every time we are treated poorly. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonal…

Big companies need big judgments to care. The point isn't simply to make the one victim whole, but to make the consequences so fearsome that the company decides that a second time must not happen and changes its internal practices.

Otherwise you have the famous Fight Club recall formula.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#245

Post by speeder »

uejfiweun wrote: post #200
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…

Yeah, I don't actively follow him either, and I am aware that he has aligned himself more with the right lately. I do think though that his work on the Snowden case was really courageous - whether or not you agree or disagree with what he did, it certainly takes balls to go up against the NatSec apparatus.

I think it is hilarious people think Greenwald is aligned to the right just because he is upset with Democrat party making mistakes.

He votes Democraft (despite being upset at them), is gay, and married to a (male) politician of the Brazillian far-left. (not just "left", his party has "socialist" in the name but has people with strong ties to the communist party and several members openly defend communism).

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#246

Post by uejfiweun »

speeder wrote: post #245
uejfiweun wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't actively follow him either, and I am aware that he has aligned himself more with the right lately. I do think though that his work on the Snowden case was really courageous - whether or not you agree or disagree with what he did, it certainly takes balls to go up against the NatSec apparatus.

I think it is hilarious people think Greenwald is aligned to the right just because he is upset with Democrat party making mistakes. He votes Democraft (despite being upset at them), is gay, and married to a (male) politician of the Brazillian far-left. (not just "left", his party has "socialist" in the name but has people with strong ties to the communist party and several members openly defend communism).

The Democratic party has become dominated by illiberal authoritarians, as I'm sure you've noticed. If you criticize these people, you are the enemy. Just look at Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#247

Post by Georgelemental »

antifa wrote: post #242
zo1 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I skimmed the article, and I can't tell if he was able to prove that they actually said those things (like a recording or email or corroborating witnesses). Otherwise I will go on a limb and say this person 100% made it up...because "wokeness". Also: "[...] three other witnesses (all non-Tesla contract employees) testified at trial that they regularly heard racial slurs (including the n-word) on the Fremont factory f…

> evidenceless conspiracy theory that black people are plotting against you Literally anything to protect daddy musk from criticism.

The conspiracy is not "black people plotting against daddy musk," its "sleazy trial lawyers plotting to get 100 million dollar payouts." Which is a tale as old as time
Post reply on HN