The US National Ignition Facility has achieved even higher energy yields since breaking even for the first time in 2022, but a practical fusion reactor is still a long way off
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.
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.
You didn’t say it, but when someone else did you became extremely pedantic, “corrected them” to maintain your perceived moral high ground, and straight up invented a strawman to not have to discuss it.
When you think looking at someone’s comment history is valid as an argument lmao. Just add ad hominem to the list. Or are you going to climb on a second high horse and say I don’t know what that is either? You’re a clown.
Is the headline not part of an article?
When one says a publication is grossly misleading, it certainly implies the entire publication
Often the author doesn’t write he headline. Not sure it matters but most a bit of info.
You’re not wrong, but we also should stop excusing, normalizing, and accepting wildly exaggerated for sales purposes titles of articles.
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.
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.
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.
It is misleading, for someone to be misleading they must mislead, and the headline misleads.
The headline is part of the publication though.
No, this is a popular science article, not an actual publication.
You didn’t say it, but when someone else did you became extremely pedantic, “corrected them” to maintain your perceived moral high ground, and straight up invented a strawman to not have to discuss it.
So you basically did say it.
Go ahead and quote that strawman for me
Your entire comment is about correcting OP. None of it addresses the headline. That’s a strawman.
This one? Where I say the publication is not misleading, only the headline? You don’t understand what a strawman is.
Your comment history indicates you’re pervasively angry about little things like this. What’s up with that?
When you think looking at someone’s comment history is valid as an argument lmao. Just add ad hominem to the list. Or are you going to climb on a second high horse and say I don’t know what that is either? You’re a clown.
That sounds like a red herring to me
“article” vs “publication”
Two different things.
The link takes you to an article. Publications are in actual scientific journals, not intended for popular consumption.
What was your question? I only read “is the” and thought I could base my response off of only that.
When I see “publication” I assume it’s the actual scientific paper and not the article reporting on said paper.
That’s a great point. I absolutely agree with you on that.
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.
Generally no
Lol ok