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.
Is the headline not part of an article?
When one says a publication is grossly misleading, it certainly implies the entire publication
“article” vs “publication”
Two different things.
The link takes you to an article. Publications are in actual scientific journals, not intended for popular consumption.
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.
Generally no
Lol ok
What was your question? I only read “is the” and thought I could base my response off of only 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.
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.