▲ 637 ▼ Nuclear fusion reaction releases almost twice the energy put in (www.newscientist.com) submitted 2 years ago by throwaway389430@lemmy.cafe to c/news@lemmy.world 344 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] protist@mander.xyz 47 points 2 years ago (1 child) but the publications are grossly misleading. I think you're only referencing the headline, the article itself clearly states what you said permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (5 children) Is the headline not part of an article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] protist@mander.xyz 15 points 2 years ago (3 children) When one says a publication is grossly misleading, it certainly implies the entire publication permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) Often the author doesn't write he headline. Not sure it matters but most a bit of info. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're not wrong, but we also should stop excusing, normalizing, and accepting wildly exaggerated for sales purposes titles of articles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] protist@mander.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is misleading, for someone to be misleading they must mislead, and the headline misleads. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The headline is part of the publication though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago No, this is a popular science article, not an actual publication. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago What was your question? I only read "is the" and thought I could base my response off of only that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) When I see "publication" I assume it's the actual scientific paper and not the article reporting on said paper. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago That's a great point. I absolutely agree with you on that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Danksy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Telodzrum@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago Lol ok permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (5 children) Is the headline not part of an article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] protist@mander.xyz 15 points 2 years ago (3 children) When one says a publication is grossly misleading, it certainly implies the entire publication permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) Often the author doesn't write he headline. Not sure it matters but most a bit of info. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're not wrong, but we also should stop excusing, normalizing, and accepting wildly exaggerated for sales purposes titles of articles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] protist@mander.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is misleading, for someone to be misleading they must mislead, and the headline misleads. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The headline is part of the publication though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago No, this is a popular science article, not an actual publication. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago What was your question? I only read "is the" and thought I could base my response off of only that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) When I see "publication" I assume it's the actual scientific paper and not the article reporting on said paper. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago That's a great point. I absolutely agree with you on that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Danksy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Telodzrum@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago Lol ok permalink fedilink source parent
[–] protist@mander.xyz 15 points 2 years ago (3 children) When one says a publication is grossly misleading, it certainly implies the entire publication permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) Often the author doesn't write he headline. Not sure it matters but most a bit of info. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're not wrong, but we also should stop excusing, normalizing, and accepting wildly exaggerated for sales purposes titles of articles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] protist@mander.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is misleading, for someone to be misleading they must mislead, and the headline misleads. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The headline is part of the publication though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago No, this is a popular science article, not an actual publication. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) Often the author doesn't write he headline. Not sure it matters but most a bit of info. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're not wrong, but we also should stop excusing, normalizing, and accepting wildly exaggerated for sales purposes titles of articles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're not wrong, but we also should stop excusing, normalizing, and accepting wildly exaggerated for sales purposes titles of articles. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] protist@mander.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is misleading, for someone to be misleading they must mislead, and the headline misleads. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The headline is part of the publication though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago No, this is a popular science article, not an actual publication. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] protist@mander.xyz 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is misleading, for someone to be misleading they must mislead, and the headline misleads. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The headline is part of the publication though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago No, this is a popular science article, not an actual publication. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] aidan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago It is misleading, for someone to be misleading they must mislead, and the headline misleads. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) The headline is part of the publication though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago No, this is a popular science article, not an actual publication. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago No, this is a popular science article, not an actual publication. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago What was your question? I only read "is the" and thought I could base my response off of only that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) When I see "publication" I assume it's the actual scientific paper and not the article reporting on said paper. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago That's a great point. I absolutely agree with you on that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago That's a great point. I absolutely agree with you on that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Danksy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Telodzrum@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago Lol ok permalink fedilink source parent