Talk:1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews - Revision history

PDesbeginner at 03:46, 19 June 2024

2024-06-19T03:46:29Z

Elektrizikekswerk at 06:47, 18 June 2024

2024-06-18T06:47:54Z

PDesbeginner at 14:44, 17 June 2024

2024-06-17T14:44:17Z

Elektrizikekswerk: It's incomplete imo

2024-06-17T09:30:35Z

It's incomplete imo

172.69.194.121 at 15:38, 19 February 2024

2024-02-19T15:38:46Z

162.158.74.69 at 14:21, 19 February 2024

2024-02-19T14:21:00Z

141.101.99.33: ...you signed at the start of your item, not at the end... misclick or not quite understanding, dunno, but corrrected for you, if you happen to read this....

2024-01-10T15:16:23Z

...you signed at the start of your item, not at the end... misclick or not quite understanding, dunno, but corrrected for you, if you happen to read this....

172.71.150.181: Added comment (sorry if I did this wrong! I haven't been active on here before, just a long-time lurker)

2024-01-10T08:17:35Z

Added comment (sorry if I did this wrong! I haven't been active on here before, just a long-time lurker)

172.70.90.121 at 13:32, 14 March 2022

2022-03-14T13:32:45Z

172.69.62.221 at 19:10, 10 December 2021

2021-12-10T19:10:46Z

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 ::Doesn't "Breaking" news just mean "new" news, or do US news services actually say "Breaking News" sometimes? I don't live in the USA so please verify this. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 14:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 :::According to the addition someone made (Thanks!) it is apparently used for both. Which would explain why noone bothered. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 06:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 tis simpler now :)

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 : I'm not particularly familiar with American news broadcasts and don't know how "inflationary" they might use actual breaking news but wouldn't breaking news be concerning in any case? Granted, I don't watch any broadcast TV but the last breaking news I can remember was 9/11. COVID-19 was very prevalent in the news, of course, but it wasn't breaking iirc. What I'm saying: The current explanation seems to fail completely in the "breaking" aspect. As I'm not confident enough in regards to breaking news on (local) TV broadcasts in the US I cannot really improve here but I'll add the incomplete tag. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 ::Doesn't "Breaking" news just mean "new" news, or do US news services actually say "Breaking News" sometimes? I don't live in the USA so please verify this. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 14:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 tis simpler now :)

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 :Just to deconstruct that one item. Doubtless there's multiple interpretations, and (if you think you can make a reasonable case for them) you are free to edit things accordingly. Briefer than this reply, ideally! ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.33|141.101.99.33]] 15:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 : I'm not particularly familiar with American news broadcasts and don't know how "inflationary" they might use actual breaking news but wouldn't breaking news be concerning in any case? Granted, I don't watch any broadcast TV but the last breaking news I can remember was 9/11. COVID-19 was very prevalent in the news, of course, but it wasn't breaking iirc. What I'm saying: The current explanation seems to fail completely in the "breaking" aspect. As I'm not confident enough in regards to breaking news on (local) TV broadcasts in the US I cannot really improve here but I'll add the incomplete tag. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
+::Doesn't "Breaking" news just mean "new" news, or do US news services actually say "Breaking News" sometimes? I don't live in the USA so please verify this. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 14:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 tis simpler now :)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:30, 17 June 2024
Line 62:		Line 62:
	:What else would a (tame) criminologist be telling us? Generally "yes, this particular newsworthy crime of a celebratory being forced to sign an autograph, even though they were trying to relax at the beach, seems to indicate a pattern as ..." or "...the trend of being blackmailed for wearing black socks on the golf-course is a fairly new tactic by extortionists, that we had not seen even recorded until just five years ago, but now seems to affect tens of people a year" is more their thing. Whereas going into 'active' analysis such as "we consider the individual who did this to be aged 40-45, a non-denomonational religious background and childhood history of stuttering" or "we believe they escaped by stolen tram to the north of the city, where we are currently concentrating our searches" are more the realm of forensic pathologists/etc (chanelled by the figurehead investigating officer or designated press-relations official), rather than drafting in a person who studies crime trends. (Unless it's off the bat by the news channel, who have their 'pet crime expert' on call and don't care much so long as he says things that they consider news.)		:What else would a (tame) criminologist be telling us? Generally "yes, this particular newsworthy crime of a celebratory being forced to sign an autograph, even though they were trying to relax at the beach, seems to indicate a pattern as ..." or "...the trend of being blackmailed for wearing black socks on the golf-course is a fairly new tactic by extortionists, that we had not seen even recorded until just five years ago, but now seems to affect tens of people a year" is more their thing. Whereas going into 'active' analysis such as "we consider the individual who did this to be aged 40-45, a non-denomonational religious background and childhood history of stuttering" or "we believe they escaped by stolen tram to the north of the city, where we are currently concentrating our searches" are more the realm of forensic pathologists/etc (chanelled by the figurehead investigating officer or designated press-relations official), rather than drafting in a person who studies crime trends. (Unless it's off the bat by the news channel, who have their 'pet crime expert' on call and don't care much so long as he says things that they consider news.)
	:Just to deconstruct that one item. Doubtless there's multiple interpretations, and (if you think you can make a reasonable case for them) you are free to edit things accordingly. Briefer than this reply, ideally! ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.33\|141.101.99.33]] 15:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)		:Just to deconstruct that one item. Doubtless there's multiple interpretations, and (if you think you can make a reasonable case for them) you are free to edit things accordingly. Briefer than this reply, ideally! ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.33\|141.101.99.33]] 15:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
		+	: I'm not particularly familiar with American news broadcasts and don't know how "inflationary" they might use actual breaking news but wouldn't breaking news be concerning in any case? Granted, I don't watch any broadcast TV but the last breaking news I can remember was 9/11. COVID-19 was very prevalent in the news, of course, but it wasn't breaking iirc. What I'm saying: The current explanation seems to fail completely in the "breaking" aspect. As I'm not confident enough in regards to breaking news on (local) TV broadcasts in the US I cannot really improve here but I'll add the incomplete tag. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk\|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk\|talk]]) 09:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:38, 19 February 2024
Line 66:		Line 66:
	tis simpler now :)		tis simpler now :)
	--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.69\|162.158.74.69]] 14:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)		--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.69\|162.158.74.69]] 14:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
		+	:'Twas. But you(?) just snipped many things without clear reasoning. Could probably be edited down (or the cross-compararisons noted in the table), but I've reverted your big-snip.
		+	:I also corrected the anchor to the table (probably, without checking, it was headed as "Table" beforehand, so I updated the link to the currently used anchor-text). It's more discriminate tweaks like this that are needed. I'm sure the pre-table prose can indeed be simplified (or folded into other bits) but not by just deleting it and leaving a smiley comment here. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.121\|172.69.194.121]] 15:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:21, 19 February 2024
Line 62:		Line 62:
	:What else would a (tame) criminologist be telling us? Generally "yes, this particular newsworthy crime of a celebratory being forced to sign an autograph, even though they were trying to relax at the beach, seems to indicate a pattern as ..." or "...the trend of being blackmailed for wearing black socks on the golf-course is a fairly new tactic by extortionists, that we had not seen even recorded until just five years ago, but now seems to affect tens of people a year" is more their thing. Whereas going into 'active' analysis such as "we consider the individual who did this to be aged 40-45, a non-denomonational religious background and childhood history of stuttering" or "we believe they escaped by stolen tram to the north of the city, where we are currently concentrating our searches" are more the realm of forensic pathologists/etc (chanelled by the figurehead investigating officer or designated press-relations official), rather than drafting in a person who studies crime trends. (Unless it's off the bat by the news channel, who have their 'pet crime expert' on call and don't care much so long as he says things that they consider news.)		:What else would a (tame) criminologist be telling us? Generally "yes, this particular newsworthy crime of a celebratory being forced to sign an autograph, even though they were trying to relax at the beach, seems to indicate a pattern as ..." or "...the trend of being blackmailed for wearing black socks on the golf-course is a fairly new tactic by extortionists, that we had not seen even recorded until just five years ago, but now seems to affect tens of people a year" is more their thing. Whereas going into 'active' analysis such as "we consider the individual who did this to be aged 40-45, a non-denomonational religious background and childhood history of stuttering" or "we believe they escaped by stolen tram to the north of the city, where we are currently concentrating our searches" are more the realm of forensic pathologists/etc (chanelled by the figurehead investigating officer or designated press-relations official), rather than drafting in a person who studies crime trends. (Unless it's off the bat by the news channel, who have their 'pet crime expert' on call and don't care much so long as he says things that they consider news.)
	:Just to deconstruct that one item. Doubtless there's multiple interpretations, and (if you think you can make a reasonable case for them) you are free to edit things accordingly. Briefer than this reply, ideally! ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.33\|141.101.99.33]] 15:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)		:Just to deconstruct that one item. Doubtless there's multiple interpretations, and (if you think you can make a reasonable case for them) you are free to edit things accordingly. Briefer than this reply, ideally! ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.33\|141.101.99.33]] 15:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	tis simpler now :)
		+	--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.69\|162.158.74.69]] 14:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:16, 10 January 2024
Line 56:		Line 56:
	"...regarding the fiery ball that maintains the Earth's orbit and capacity for life." — To be honest, this is overkill. There aren't that many things that can go wrong with the Sun to make the orbit different without affecting the capacity for life. And any number (including suddenly becoming a solar-mass black hole for... reasons(?)) that would definitely mess about with habitability but not actually change the orbit appreciably. Orbital changes are most likely due to other factors entirely, this side of being engulfed by the expaning solar atmosphere (which would be a herald of unhealthy conditions long before that). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121\|172.70.90.121]] 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)		"...regarding the fiery ball that maintains the Earth's orbit and capacity for life." — To be honest, this is overkill. There aren't that many things that can go wrong with the Sun to make the orbit different without affecting the capacity for life. And any number (including suddenly becoming a solar-mass black hole for... reasons(?)) that would definitely mess about with habitability but not actually change the orbit appreciably. Orbital changes are most likely due to other factors entirely, this side of being engulfed by the expaning solar atmosphere (which would be a herald of unhealthy conditions long before that). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121\|172.70.90.121]] 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

−	~~[[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.181\|172.71.150.181]] 08:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)~~I feel like many of the explanations on the left end of the scale are inaccurate given that this is BREAKING news specifically. With the economist, although it mentions it might be a crash, it would almost certainly be a crash if it's breaking. For a nutritionist, I feel like the joke there has to do with something being dangerous to eat, given that it's breaking (and more worrisome than an economic crash.) For a criminologist, given that its an interview, and not directly handling the criminal, this one could certainly be a loose criminal (again, given that it's breaking.)	+	I feel like many of the explanations on the left end of the scale are inaccurate given that this is BREAKING news specifically. With the economist, although it mentions it might be a crash, it would almost certainly be a crash if it's breaking. For a nutritionist, I feel like the joke there has to do with something being dangerous to eat, given that it's breaking (and more worrisome than an economic crash.) For a criminologist, given that its an interview, and not directly handling the criminal, this one could certainly be a loose criminal (again, given that it's breaking.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.181\|172.71.150.181]] 08:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
		+	:Aside from there always being the possibility of "Breaking News: Somebody just released the results of a long awaited report (and we haven't anything more world-shattering to tell you right now, but we're a 24-hour news channel and we'll broadcast what we get, when we get it...)", I can see how you could also improve the treatment of some. Feel free to try to improve as you see fit.
		+	:Though 'boring' crime statistics ''might'' indeed be of the major newsworthy nature (it's the point at which the government/police/etc are 'proven' officially good (or, probably, bad) at their job by identifying some simplistic number that compares well(/badly) with the number from the last time they released something like this). It's bread and butter for those who report broad-stroke things. Especially if those broad-strokes support their editorial worldview, whatever that might be...
		+	:"Can't you see? Burglaries are up! <sub>Robberies and kidnappings are both are way down, but</sub> '''I blame the government for the increase in crime''', <sub>by which I mean just the robberies, let us skip over those other figures. The lowering of robberies and kidnappings is ''clearly'' due to robbers and kidnappers deciding to do other things, like</sub> '''Burglary!!!''' Beware of burglars! And blame this government <sub>for concentrating on anti-robbery and anti-kidnapping measures, which turns out to be 'useless' because those are the crimes nobody is even committing, they should have actually been attempting to stop</sub> All! These! Burglars!"
		+	:What else would a (tame) criminologist be telling us? Generally "yes, this particular newsworthy crime of a celebratory being forced to sign an autograph, even though they were trying to relax at the beach, seems to indicate a pattern as ..." or "...the trend of being blackmailed for wearing black socks on the golf-course is a fairly new tactic by extortionists, that we had not seen even recorded until just five years ago, but now seems to affect tens of people a year" is more their thing. Whereas going into 'active' analysis such as "we consider the individual who did this to be aged 40-45, a non-denomonational religious background and childhood history of stuttering" or "we believe they escaped by stolen tram to the north of the city, where we are currently concentrating our searches" are more the realm of forensic pathologists/etc (chanelled by the figurehead investigating officer or designated press-relations official), rather than drafting in a person who studies crime trends. (Unless it's off the bat by the news channel, who have their 'pet crime expert' on call and don't care much so long as he says things that they consider news.)
		+	:Just to deconstruct that one item. Doubtless there's multiple interpretations, and (if you think you can make a reasonable case for them) you are free to edit things accordingly. Briefer than this reply, ideally! ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.33\|141.101.99.33]] 15:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:17, 10 January 2024
Line 55:		Line 55:

	"...regarding the fiery ball that maintains the Earth's orbit and capacity for life." — To be honest, this is overkill. There aren't that many things that can go wrong with the Sun to make the orbit different without affecting the capacity for life. And any number (including suddenly becoming a solar-mass black hole for... reasons(?)) that would definitely mess about with habitability but not actually change the orbit appreciably. Orbital changes are most likely due to other factors entirely, this side of being engulfed by the expaning solar atmosphere (which would be a herald of unhealthy conditions long before that). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121\|172.70.90.121]] 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)		"...regarding the fiery ball that maintains the Earth's orbit and capacity for life." — To be honest, this is overkill. There aren't that many things that can go wrong with the Sun to make the orbit different without affecting the capacity for life. And any number (including suddenly becoming a solar-mass black hole for... reasons(?)) that would definitely mess about with habitability but not actually change the orbit appreciably. Orbital changes are most likely due to other factors entirely, this side of being engulfed by the expaning solar atmosphere (which would be a herald of unhealthy conditions long before that). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121\|172.70.90.121]] 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	[[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.181\|172.71.150.181]] 08:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)I feel like many of the explanations on the left end of the scale are inaccurate given that this is BREAKING news specifically. With the economist, although it mentions it might be a crash, it would almost certainly be a crash if it's breaking. For a nutritionist, I feel like the joke there has to do with something being dangerous to eat, given that it's breaking (and more worrisome than an economic crash.) For a criminologist, given that its an interview, and not directly handling the criminal, this one could certainly be a loose criminal (again, given that it's breaking.)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:32, 14 March 2022
Line 53:		Line 53:
	[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.88\|172.68.211.88]] 01:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.88\|172.68.211.88]] 01:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
	I added a funny citation needed to the part about the Sun. It's obvious enough to warrant one in my opinion.--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.221\|172.69.62.221]] 19:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)		I added a funny citation needed to the part about the Sun. It's obvious enough to warrant one in my opinion.--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.221\|172.69.62.221]] 19:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	"...regarding the fiery ball that maintains the Earth's orbit and capacity for life." — To be honest, this is overkill. There aren't that many things that can go wrong with the Sun to make the orbit different without affecting the capacity for life. And any number (including suddenly becoming a solar-mass black hole for... reasons(?)) that would definitely mess about with habitability but not actually change the orbit appreciably. Orbital changes are most likely due to other factors entirely, this side of being engulfed by the expaning solar atmosphere (which would be a herald of unhealthy conditions long before that). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121\|172.70.90.121]] 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 10 December 2021
Line 51:		Line 51:

	I suggest we add this article about the spelling of Archaeologist and Archeologist https://web.archive.org/web/20091205105622/http://www.saa.org/ForthePublic/Resources/OtherUsefulResources/Whyaretheretwodifferentspellingsarchaeology/tabid/1078/Default.aspx		I suggest we add this article about the spelling of Archaeologist and Archeologist https://web.archive.org/web/20091205105622/http://www.saa.org/ForthePublic/Resources/OtherUsefulResources/Whyaretheretwodifferentspellingsarchaeology/tabid/1078/Default.aspx
−	[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.88\|172.68.211.88]] 01:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)	+	[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.88\|172.68.211.88]] 01:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
		+	I added a funny citation needed to the part about the Sun. It's obvious enough to warrant one in my opinion.--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.221\|172.69.62.221]] 19:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)