[idlewords]

This article (about a super interesting and precise measurement of background gravitational waves) reads like it came from Parade Magazine:

"The gravitational wave background, as described by the astrophysicists, does not put any torque on everyday human existence. There is not a weight-loss discovery in here somewhere. A burble of gravitational waves cannot explain why some days you feel out of sorts. But it does offer potential insight into the physical reality we all inhabit."

This is just embarrassing for the Washington Post; the scientists who worked so long for this result deserve better science journalism.

[snowwrestler]

Those are jokes, a signature of the writing style of Joel Achenbach, who is a respected and experienced science writer.

[throwaway290]

It's absolutely key to put these clarifications in a magazine read by laypeople to whom the actual paper would be complete gibberish. If you think there are no silly quacky pseudoscientific ideas spreading from people who misunderstand the phrasing, I have bad news for you. Kudos for journalists trying to combat that.

[NotYourLawyer]

Science journalism is 99% trash. WaPo is independently 99% trash.

The odds of this being a good article were pretty low.

[kleene_op]

The style of this article is quite something. At first I thought it was AI generated.

[wernercd]

You expect good articles out of WashPo? Scientific journalism... from... WashPo?

WashPo is many things... but good journalism and scientific journalism is not two.