11–20 of 66 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Either you don't know (why reply at all?) Because, as a lay person, I’ve heard of globular clusters, and that means several experts in the field not talking about them points not to “weird”, but to “nope”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm gonna guess that the prominent astronomers at several top-notch universities mentioned have heard of globular clusters, and that the reason it's not mentioned is it's not relevant.
[flagged]
Many folks on HN, when encountering non-"tech" articles in the sciences, have a somewhat distressing habit of plunging toward assumptions which suggest that the people in the article have failed to look for the obvious and/or are decades behind in what the subjects know. This is especially sorrowful, because who among us hasn't suffered through someone asking us, in our specialty, "Why don't you just hit the EASY button? It's around here somewhere! You're making this sound hard!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Is this level of tone policing helpful on net, though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Either you don't know (why reply at all?) Because, as a lay person, I’ve heard of globular clusters, and that means several experts in the field not talking about them points not to “weird”, but to “nope”.
I don't contest the answer "nope" (in fact, I provided an explanation) -- I contest your decision to prioritize snark over helpfulness.
Anyone with JWST time slots knows what a globular cluster is. If they say it’s weird and unexplained, it probably is at present.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this level of tone policing helpful on net, though?
In my estimation, yes. I'd like to see replies here focus on helpfulness and knowledge sharing. You are certainly free to disagree.
The comment at which the snark was direct is a bad comment (the writer does not know enough about astronomy to make any weird feeling he has about an astronomy article to be the least bit informative) but I'll downvote comments like that rather than try to defend snarky replies to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm gonna guess that the prominent astronomers at several top-notch universities mentioned have heard of globular clusters, and that the reason it's not mentioned is it's not relevant.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm gonna guess that the prominent astronomers at several top-notch universities mentioned have heard of globular clusters, and that the reason it's not mentioned is it's not relevant.
[flagged]
I agree with you, that the explanation why that can't be globular clusters would be much more helpful, but if one wants to get it, they'd better do not say things like "globular clusters are not even mentioned in that article, which is weird." People see such statements and answer to them.
When you're asking a question you need to be focused on your question, a little slip can lead to results exactly as we see. If I was asking that question, I would mention my disappointment with the lack of mention of globular clusters, but I wouldn't call the article weird because of this, I'd rather mention my limited knowledge of astronomy and my curiosity and my hunger for knowledge, and I make it clear that these are the reasons of my disappointment, not the bad work of the authors of the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Is this level of tone policing helpful on net, though?
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Basically everyone is wrong here