It's interesting, that even in a community like HN, almost nobody seems to ask for the scientific reference here.
Might have something to do with confirmation bias? Or is there such a thing like sounds-interesting-AF-bias?
Well, let's give people a break. It sounded plausible. We've all heard of the story of the waggle dance, often in grade school, in a simplified form. TIL 3-2-1 Contact lied to me.
That said, I don't believe that computer programmers are, as a group, significantly more skeptical than other professions. Like most people we muddle along with generalizations, lore, and myth.
“Monday. 9:43 AM. The economy had gotten so bad in New York that people couldn’t afford to eat in restaurants anymore; instead they brown bagged it at their desks. They didn’t eat food at their desks, just brown bags.”
Except that someone did question it and look up Wikipedia, a trusted source of sorts. And this thread about questioning sources is near the top of the whole thread.
On CorporateNews the version of the article going around talks about how 98% of rogue bees don't find a better flower patch and die starving and alone. ;)
Your point is a great one. Most information in our world is of extremely low quality. That's what happens when attention is incentivized, not teaching.
Or perhaps the important thing is the story being told rather than the exact scientific accuracy of the setting. Tortoises and hares don't literally talk or enter foot races with one another, either, yet there's still plenty of value to be had from the fable featuring them.
Right, just like Trump's strategy. Immigrants are bad for 'merica. Don't mind the details or ask for proof. It's the story that counts, and in the story they are all rapists taking the jobs of hard-working 'mericans.
That said, I don't believe that computer programmers are, as a group, significantly more skeptical than other professions. Like most people we muddle along with generalizations, lore, and myth.