|
|
|
|
|
|
by pheldagryph
3178 days ago
|
|
|
I don't understand your critique. Spending a few extra characters to highlight how cool the scientific field work is seems like a fine thing for the NYT to do. Good for kids, young and old. Are you SURE you like bears and buffalo? I don't think your link contains better science: > A Yellowstone eruption would be absolutely devastating, covering half the Earth in an ash cloud that could trigger a nuclear winter. I suppose _all_ winters are nuclear winters... from an atom's point of view. |
|
|
Maybe my expectations for the NYT are too high but they did once have a very good science and technology section.
And yes, I like bears and buffalo. I do live in the woods for a reason. There are no buffalo but there are bears.
While I only highlighted the one sentence, most of the article was fluff. It's the science section, we don't need to set the scene.
As I said, I may just expect too much from them. Once upon a time, they were substantial and informative. They would have experts to explain things for a layperson. They'd have multiple sources for commentary and would make an effort to inform.
For better or worse, those days are behind us. It's not just this one article, or just that one sentence. I'm not mad, just disappointed.