logoalt Hacker News

satvikpendemtoday at 2:09 AM7 repliesview on HN

Using scientists being "stunned" should take the same amount of relevance as someone being "slammed" in article titles.


Replies

Nitiontoday at 3:26 AM

It's a direct quote from one of the scientists:

'"I was absolutely stunned when I first saw the results," Prof Chris Griffiths, a senior author on the study, at Queen Mary University of London, told the BBC."'

show 2 replies
alansabertoday at 4:34 AM

Scientists are only allowed to be stunned when results exceed 5 sigma of deviation

show 1 reply
throwaway2037today at 9:10 AM

To be fair, BBC is aimed at the normies, not the scientifically literate. (No hate on BBC!) Stunned probably gets more clicks than surprised.

bryanlarsentoday at 2:47 AM

Smokers don't magically undo the damage they did to their lungs after they stop smoking. Stunned might be hyperbole, but it is at least a little bit surprising.

show 3 replies
vfcliststoday at 4:39 AM

Sounds like an announcement of the latest AI news from Wes Roth. I'm surprised the Professor wasn't "shocked"

powerpcmactoday at 2:13 AM

I'd like to imagine the stunned scientist is a scientist from another field, they show some medical findings to a guy who looks at snail butts all day and he's the one "stunned" by the findings

show 1 reply
Neil44today at 8:01 AM

I'm obviously supportive of less pollution etc etc but looking at the actual graph results I wouldn't describe them as 'stunning', the needle barely moved. But of course, they have to have something to make headlines after spending so many million on the study and who knows how many billion on ulez. I'm not one of these anti ulez people I think it's good. But you can imagine the pressure to spin tepid results into headlines.

show 1 reply