• kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Her qualifications:

    • Produced 3 Vox science+politics explainer shows, including Emmy-nominated “Explained” on Netflix
    • …and hosted 2 of those shows
    • Selected by IBM to do an explainer on quantum computing
    • Selected by Helion to do an explainer on fusion
    • Selected by Argonne National Laboratory to cover a nuclear waste recycling program

    If you watched the video and read the article, you know that what’s in dispute is not the data itself, but rather how it’s presented. In a Hermes Conrad, “technically correct” kind of way, the headline “the Earth’s core has stopped and may be reversing direction” is not objectively wrong, but it’s only true with respect to a reference frame that most laypeople would not immediately assume.

    As demonstrated in the OP, most people when they hear “the core has stopped spinning”, assume that means relative to the Earth’s axis, which is not true. The core, along with the rest of the Earth, is still spinning around the axis just fine. The core is just doing it less quickly than the rest of the Earth now. Which is like… Did you even know that the core was previously spinning faster than the rest of the Earth?

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      So nothing related to earth sciences at all… Thanks! I’ll trust the people who are actually specialized scientists that are quoted in the article then.

      • kibiz0r@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The scientists didn’t pick the headline. An editor – who I assure you knows nothing about Earth sciences – picked it, for maximum clickbait.

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I read the article. Anyone who just reads headlines these days are more or less dumb. You should know I read it since I could tell you that scientists were quoted in the article… But I guess that went over your head. The point is ultimately that youtube shorts isn’t an accurate rebuttal to anything unless the person in the video is a direct source… And in this case you’ve validated they’re not.

          • kibiz0r@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure thing homie. I just wanted to clear up a common misconception. But if you wanna take a stand about properly citing first-party sources in memes@lemmy.ml, then you do you I guess.

            • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              See… if you actually read my comment. It was a complaint that people upvoted a tiktok like video rather than an actual article that contained proper resources. Pointing out that people would rather prefer a bubbly personality rather than actually understanding it.

              But you know… you do you I guess.