this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
71 points (94.9% liked)
Technology
59390 readers
3724 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So it’s more accurate at predicting but they don’t say how much more accurate.
The footnotes link to the scientific papers being written about, so you can read them if you want more detailed information.
It’s just disappointing Nature coverage. I shouldn’t have to read the footnotes as well.
…You shouldn’t have to read the details to get detailed information. Ok. 😐
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to have the first question people will ask be answered in a scientific article.
The article explains what most folks would be interested in, and links to the papers for folks who want more info and specific details.
The information is there. But I think you were just looking for something to complain about.
Holy moley, are you just arguing to argue, or...?
No, just irritated with people who can’t be bothered to actually read.
You think adding a few words about how much much more precise they are would hurt? Someone should need to go to the sources to find out how this works exactly or how they designed it or whatever, but simply stating the actual improvement should be part of the article.