• protist@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    but the publications are grossly misleading.

    I think you’re only referencing the headline, the article itself clearly states what you said

      • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        When I see “publication” I assume it’s the actual scientific paper and not the article reporting on said paper.

      • Danksy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        It’s easier to nitpick than it is to interact with the actual argument.

        I agree with you. The headline is misleading, and I think it devalues the article.

      • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        What was your question? I only read “is the” and thought I could base my response off of only that.

      • protist@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        When one says a publication is grossly misleading, it certainly implies the entire publication

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            You’re not wrong, but we also should stop excusing, normalizing, and accepting wildly exaggerated for sales purposes titles of articles.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              We should stop accepting lies.

              Unless there is some way this reaction actually did produce twice the energy input, it’s not misleading it’s a lie.

        • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Why have we accepted the standard of misleading headlines? “Oh well you didn’t read the article, I guess you and 90% of eyeballs get to be fundamentally misinformed” is an unhinged take.

          • protist@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            I never said a misleading headline was acceptable. I said the publication is not misleading and that it covers the criticisms dude up above was leveling.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          “article” vs “publication”

          Two different things.

          The link takes you to an article. Publications are in actual scientific journals, not intended for popular consumption.