A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
It's worth noting that organic molecules can be created by processes not related to life as we know it, and thus aren't direct evidence of life.
Saved you a click.
Naturally, organic simply means carbon is present in the (non-metal) structure. Generally carbon-carbon, carbon-hydrogen, and a few other bond-types are considered organic. Many articles prey on people's misunderstanding of this in order to craft a good headline, since "carbon-based material" doesn't sound as exciting as "organic material".
And when they say it "be created by processes not related to life as we know it" they should also probably mention that it can be created in the absence of any life at all; since if that weren't true then it would in fact be direct evidence of life.
Thank you. This is exactly why I tended to go right to the comments in Reddit, because inevitably an "expert" would comment on why the article headline was bullshit (an "expert" can be somebody with experience, a PhD, or just somebody who actually read the article). It's so annoying how the news gets framed in order to increase the number of clicks on a page.
Funny how that's the most important part and it's not in the headline.
Almost like they know what they're doing and don't care because it makes them more money.
Writers always know that "organic" will be misinterpreted by the public, and do it anyway, hiding behind "technically correct". Personally, I think avoiding creating more misunderstandings about science and space exploration outweighs any "technically correct" bullshit. Stop intentionally hurting public understanding for clicks.
Basically me: Organic? So does that mean signs of life I wonder? Better read the article
While I'm clicking on the link I realize that if they actually found evidence for life they would 100% lead with that in their headline. So I close the article tab again immediately but they got their page visit, so mission accomplished I guess?
While I agree with your main gist, I actually think this overall creates less misunderstanding than more; at least, and probably solely, with respect to what organic means. Because people read that headline and think 'z0mg life discovered on mars' and then one of a few things may happen which leads them to realize that organic != organism. Though some of those 'few things' may include temporarily spreading their incorrect interpretation to others, I believe even a slightly intelligent person will realize that they may have wrong information when this finding doesn't end up as front page news and 'breaking news' segments around the world.
So at least in that respect, this kind of journalism constantly teaches and reminds people that organic doesn't mean life. Though, ultimately, I still dislike it as much as the next guy.
this kind of journalism constantly teaches and reminds people that organic doesn’t mean life.
Except... it doesn't. That's just a dreamy hypothetical way that it might manifest, but that doesn't match reality. It misinforms. The end.
Talks about Perseverance.
Image is of Spirit or Opportunity.
So this is material that is free of chemical pesticides?
"So far, the only Martian rocks we've ever been able to study on Earth have been meteorites. Getting our hands on intact Mars rocks, carefully stored and protected from contamination, will be invaluable to planetary science," said Joseph Razzell Hollis, a postdoctoral fellow at London's Natural History Museum.
Hollis is also an author on a research paper recently published in the journal Nature titled "Diverse organic-mineral associations in Jezero crater, Mars."
I’m confused: is this article just summarizing Hollis’s paper, or is this a new discovery and they asked Hollis to comment because he’d previously written a relevant paper?
Fuck yeah one step closer to aliens
I am still betting we won't find life there.
Mars had a wet past. If there had been life in that wet past it would have taken over the entire planet. A process we don't see evidence for but should.
Which means that either life is rare or life on Mars was unlike life on earth. Of the two, the former requires less assumptions. The default is no life. The default is not life that is radically different than earth life.
Or, the window of habitability on Mars was much shorter than on Earth, and there just wasn't time for complex, multicellular life to evolve. On Earth, life existed for billions of years before multicellular critters popped up. I think one day, a rover is going to turn over the right rock and we'll see a little smudge of fossilized algal mat. But I am an optimist.
Maybe. Wouldn't explain why the atmosphere wasn't forever altered.
If we are using steps as a progress guide then we are still about 1,000 km from little green men visiting earth.
Man I wish NASA (or some private pioneer) would send an archeology team (human or robot) to find evidence of previous life. Like dinosaurs or something. If you discovered that, you'd be immortal.
How would this make us immortal?
It is said men have two (2) deaths. The first is physical. The second is when your influence in the world is no longer felt and your name has been spoken for the very last time.
As the great author Terry Pratchet has proclaimed, "No one is actually dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away..."
So it is in that vein in which my use of the word "immortal" was intended. Immortal was used in a purposefully exaggerated way to impress upon the reader the great significance and glory of the discoverer in making such a discovery.
My comment was intended in a poetic light, rather than logically or scientifically.