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 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
also (and I mostly agree with you BUT) "epic" is hyperbolic but I don't this the writer meant "epoch" there... rescan it.
-
the writer used "epic" and "epoch" in the same sentence ... but, yeah, maybe you're right
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.