dern_the_hermit t1_jebdqq0 wrote

The wording's fine, guys. Just because someone is capable of misreading or reading too much into a headline that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the headline. That's just language, and how people can sometimes parse the wrong thing from it. Communication isn't some contest to see who can have the least ambiguity.


dern_the_hermit t1_jeb5evj wrote

> I know there is a lot of "Boeing bad" in all of Reddit

Well, it's for shit like this, the company squandering its talent pools and pedigree with goofy management and stumbling behavior. If they can't pull a major turnaround they're going to represent sludge that slows down the whole industry, simply by virtue of their size and sprawl.


dern_the_hermit t1_jde0lsj wrote

> ive yet to see any of these bold claim stories bare fruit

Would you? I mean, how often do you note the claim and then follow up on it later? If you've ever dismissed a bold claim story that DID bare(sic) fruit, would you be aware of it?


dern_the_hermit t1_jc8xhkb wrote

> it's called dark matter because it only interacts gravitationally, not because we can't explain why it should be there.

No, the notion that it only interacts gravitationally came much later. Previously it was assumed that it might simply be... dark matter, regular old gas, dust, rocks, stellar remnants, black holes, etc. that were not luminous. Take a look at MACHOs and WIMPs for theories about "dark matter" being regular standard model stuff that simply wasn't glowing.

It wasn't until decades later that "it only interacts gravitationally" became the dominating notion, entirely based on the preponderance of observations indicating something like that.


dern_the_hermit t1_jc8lsj0 wrote

We don't have a model for dark matter. It is called "dark" because it is unknown. We are currently in the early stages of creating a model to explain observations, one good enough to make predictions. Several models, actually, of which dark matter - that is, "matter that only interacts gravitationally" - is the only candidate that can explain the widest range of observations.


dern_the_hermit t1_jc8f9ce wrote

> If you read the article itself you'll find that those names were invented as merely labels for the inconsistencies in how Universe behaved.

That's just dismissively reductive. Those "mere" inconsistencies were like half a dozen separate observations that differed from expected values by a pretty exact amount, noted by many people, across many decades. This wasn't some flippant, casual invention but the product of rigorous observation and calculation, challenged at every step by multiple other parties with alternate theories that, themselves, do not explain all of the aforementioned observations.

By your complaints, I offer you just don't understand the data.


dern_the_hermit t1_jafuzvw wrote

Yes, it is absolutely ridiculous to be going on about "existential threats". It will be somewhat of a nuisance. Astronomy will still happen, data will still be gathered, they'll just have their algorithms remove a few satellites from the thousands of photos taken.

Ultimately this is a problem that indicates its own solution: There's so much stuff up there because launching stuff has got so cheap, comparatively. Since launching stuff is getting so easy we'll be able to pop up space telescopes easier, too.


dern_the_hermit t1_j8aceti wrote

> The point is that there must be many other factors

Exactly, which is why it's weird to see someone insist that most members of a group must exhibit the relevant behaviors to establish a connection. Crime is a complicated issue and remains opportunistic even when there is greater incentive to commit it, for instance.


dern_the_hermit t1_j85bfrg wrote

That doesn't track. It's not like a light switch where there's just the two "crime" or "not crime" states. It's a matter of likelihood that someone will commit a crime, not a guarantee.

If the crime rate increases as economic standing decreases, that establishes a link between poverty and crime, there's no need for most of the group to be exhibiting the behavior.