The “next generation” gets trained by adjuncts and grad students. “Top scientists, engineers, and thinkers” are too busy with grant proposals to be bothered with teaching.
I mean I got into it because I loved it as a kid in the 80s and 90s. And I still loved it in college. Turning it into a job quickly crushed any love I had though.
Can we add “I think it sounds like AI writing” to the list of off topic tangential annoyances? Clicking into an HN thread and having the top comment being about em dashes or something is obnoxious.
Totally, but I didn't say political means everything I said everything is political, which means anything a human does to any extent, tacitly or otherwise, is embedded in a power structure.
I don’t know, in both the USA and Vietnam I see a massively disproportionate amount of people with the orange iPhone 17 Pro. Personally I like the orange color, but based on how ubiquitous the color choice seems to be, is does look a lot like conspicuous consumption to me.
And even in a case now that they have those huge camera plateaus you can still definitely tell what color iPhone someone has.
Oh my god, I think you might be on to something. If you follow the evidence, it does in fact seem like people like color. Of course Apple would exploit this by offering colored phones!
That's true, and it's also one of those factoids that everybody already knows but certain people can't help themselves from bringing up every time it's even tenuously relevant.
The fact that it was the top comment only shows that people agreed or liked it, not that it was actually valuable, accurate, or useful. Popularity and value aren't the same thing, correlation is not causation, etc, etc...
Most observational studies do in fact account for the first thing a random HN poster can come up with 5 seconds after reading the title. So there is very little value in such a comment.
This was published in Nature, I'm pretty sure the reviewers understand and account for that. HN and reasonably educated people always think this is some huge gotcha, second only to "CORRELATION != CAUSATION!!!!"
Nature isn't an arbiter of truth, it's a publisher of papers. It's also meant to be read critically by people who see a paper like this and and think "interesting, but this is just an observational study, I'd like to see more research, maybe something with more controls before I believe this".
Say what you want about the "correlation doesn't imply causation", but many people do not understand why that is. As a shorthand for "hey, you don't know the statistics behind this, so don't take the pretty picture at face value", it's pretty good.
This is a bizarre conspiracy theory that you just invented. Stop making up things to get angry about.
reply