I can't recall the name of the cognitive bias, but it's the one where you read something related to your own domain of expertise and know it's bullshit, but then turn around and believe the same...
But now, a large team of US researchers has found a single solution that appears to manage everything
miracle material
I can't recall the name of the cognitive bias, but it's the one where you read something related to your own domain of expertise and know it's bullshit, but then turn around and believe the same sources when they talk about other domains.
You're not getting me today, whatever you're called!
This reads precisely the same way as garbage science journalism in my own field, and I'm going to put it in the same bucket I keep all my magical thorium and graphene in.
I typically expect better from Arstechnica, too. Although I may be biased by how good their computing and space news is (especially when it's from their main contributors).
I typically expect better from Arstechnica, too. Although I may be biased by how good their computing and space news is (especially when it's from their main contributors).
If I'm reading vakieh's comment correctly, they're saying that Ars Technica writes bad articles in their domain of expertise, and so Ars Technica probably writes bad articles in other domains as...
If I'm reading vakieh's comment correctly, they're saying that Ars Technica writes bad articles in their domain of expertise, and so Ars Technica probably writes bad articles in other domains as well. I don't read many of their articles, so I don't have any strong opinions about their reporting.
Hmm. Assuming I'm focusing on the same segment you were, I read the original comment @vakieh made as "there's garbage reporting across many publications in my field that makes similarly crazy...
Hmm. Assuming I'm focusing on the same segment you were, I read the original comment @vakieh made as "there's garbage reporting across many publications in my field that makes similarly crazy claims, I think this may be the same".
In general, my experience of Arstechnica reporting in two other fields, space and computing, has been quite good (wouldn't call myself a true expert in those, but I'll go as far as "avid follower/enthusiast").
If it sounds too good to be true; it usually is. I posted this on Hubski as well, and got a very interesting comment from someone who appears to know a lot about processing wood. If even Arizona...
If it sounds too good to be true; it usually is.
I posted this on Hubski as well, and got a very interesting comment from someone who appears to know a lot about processing wood.
What's left is likely susceptible to moisture, as the original publication makes it a point worth mentioning numerous times. You let that cellulose soak up too much water, and there goes your structural strength. They even had to treat it in a fluorosilane to make it superhydrophobic when testing outdoors. In Arizona.
It's damn interesting, but I'm sceptical about it being viable outside of extremely arid places.
If even Arizona isn't dry enough for this material, it doesn't sound likely to find many real-life applications.
I can't recall the name of the cognitive bias, but it's the one where you read something related to your own domain of expertise and know it's bullshit, but then turn around and believe the same sources when they talk about other domains.
You're not getting me today, whatever you're called!
This reads precisely the same way as garbage science journalism in my own field, and I'm going to put it in the same bucket I keep all my magical thorium and graphene in.
The Gell-Mann amnesia effect!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
Woot! Thanks, now watch me only ever remember this when it's not relevant to what is going on as per usual :-)
I typically expect better from Arstechnica, too. Although I may be biased by how good their computing and space news is (especially when it's from their main contributors).
If I'm reading vakieh's comment correctly, they're saying that Ars Technica writes bad articles in their domain of expertise, and so Ars Technica probably writes bad articles in other domains as well. I don't read many of their articles, so I don't have any strong opinions about their reporting.
Hmm. Assuming I'm focusing on the same segment you were, I read the original comment @vakieh made as "there's garbage reporting across many publications in my field that makes similarly crazy claims, I think this may be the same".
In general, my experience of Arstechnica reporting in two other fields, space and computing, has been quite good (wouldn't call myself a true expert in those, but I'll go as far as "avid follower/enthusiast").
If it sounds too good to be true; it usually is.
I posted this on Hubski as well, and got a very interesting comment from someone who appears to know a lot about processing wood.
If even Arizona isn't dry enough for this material, it doesn't sound likely to find many real-life applications.