[archgoon]

> since we're not sure what the LHC Nightmare Scenario is.

I disagree. I believe that the intended audience of this article, people familiar with what the LHC has been up to, what it's goals were, who are keeping up with current events, like knowing that the diphoton bump has vanished, would immediately recognize what the article would be about. I did at least. It seems completely unfair to say "This article doesn't cater to HN" and then accuse the author of engaging in sensationalistic clickbait, especially when HN doesn't trust submitters to provide more context in headlines.

This lack of context is because, it appears, most HN readers are more familiar with the actual clickbait headlines from media outlets proclaiming "Mini Blackholes may destroy the earth!", "Strangelets could destroy the earth!", "The LHC will start the Zombie Apocalypse!", than the actual concerns of scientists. Again, this seems monstrously unfair that actual clickbait has set the conversation, and people who actually are talking about the actual 'nightmare scenario' are now accused of clickbait.

Not all nightmares are about monsters chasing you. A lot of them are showing up to class in your underwear, or trying to find that report that you know should be on the table. I would not be surprised that several physicists have in fact had actual nightmares of this exact scenario.

[csydas]

I'm a little confused as to whom specifically you're responding to.

I'm not sure where the idea of "this article doesn't cater to HN" and the following accusation comes from in relation to the thread that was being discussed.

I do agree with you that it's unfair to call it clickbait, that there's a large difference between a provocative headline and a clickbait headline. Personally I'm not familiar enough with the going-ons of the LHC to really comment intelligently on the research, so I have and will hold off on that.

[archgoon]

I was responding, perhaps my misinterpretation, to your assertion that it was unclear what the 'nightmare scenario' was. I asserted that if you had been following the recent developments of the LHC (or had some idea as to what the worst case scenario was), there would be no ambiguity as to what this article was about. The reason why this is the case is that this article was not written with the HN crowd in mind.

The primary response to this article, given the comments, is "what do you mean you're not talking about black holes" rather than an actual discussion of the ideas of the article (the failure of "naturalness" and "beauty" to make predictions for the LHC). Which leads me to conclude that HN is not a good place to talk about this (since most people are complaining that the , as we're arguing about the most boring, superficial part of the article.

My statement that people are complaining about "This article doesn't cater to HN", is my summary of the idea that 'I am not familiar with the context associated with the headline, and to me it sounds sensationalistic, and therefore it is clickbait, and the author should have picked a better title'. You obviously, are not advocating that position.

[csydas]

Ah, yes, I was projecting my own ignorance out to the general audience when I said that it was "unclear what the nightmare scenario was", as I think a lot of people really didn't follow LHC news well enough to know what the nightmare scenario would be. This is the source of the confusion, and I should have been more clear.

The rest I believe you and I are in agreement over. :)