1/ interesting science, but the article is garbage starts out talking about "direct images", but then the images in the article are labelled "simulations", and the text says "... too small and distant to be directly observed". almost all science writing is garbage, sadlyhttps://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1372536072589225985 …
-
-
3/ caveats to tweet #1 in this thread: the thing that is claimed to be too small and distant are galaxies, which is not exactly the same as filaments and the final image in the article is not labelled "simulation"
Show this thread -
4/ probably the thing I hate most about pop science writing is that it almost never links to the actual scientific papers, so you can see that stuff is getting mangled in the translation, but you can't read the real stuff, at least not easily (not unique to science writing >
Show this thread -
5/ 99.999% of political reporting will talk about a new bill or executive order, but not link to it. So you just have to take someone else's word that a bill is "pro woman" or "anti environment" or whatever. harrumph
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That reads as possibly a pun to me.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
going to need some wide numeric fields to specify dates if that's your epoch
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Dude, that earlier epoch was, like, epic!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.