1. 7

It seems that space-related news regularly gets posted. Whether it’s a NASA-related tech article, a space-related discovery, or astronomical or solar system science news. Generally these sorts of articles are posted under the generic “science” tag, but I think having a “space” will be useful as a differentiator or a place for people to search for space-related news.

  1.  

  2. 16

    I think science is good enough. Space-related articles are rare enough that it’s not overrun. I read /r/space and most of it is fluff that’s not relevant to this audience.

    1. 1

      I agree. Science is fine esp given interesting stories overlap with it somehow pretty often.

    2. 8

      Just an opinion…I’d prefer not to see much space stuff posted here, because it’s basically kinda pointless.

      If it’s an article about engineering an engine (with equations or schematics), writing avionics software, or the math involved in orbital calculations, I think such stories are a good fit.

      Unfortunately, space articles tend towards popsci pieces that have very little real actionable information and overall are of low quality–“Check out this one weird trick SpaceX uses to build their engines”, “NASA spent 30MUSD on a new rocket, you’ll never guess what happened next”, etc. etc. They cover a topic that by definition matters to a miniscule percentage of anybody reading this site, and tend to just be junk food for the brain.

      If people want to be inspired to leave our pale blue dot, more power to them; that said, they should get inspiration on a forum that caters to that sort of content. Lobsters is primarily a site for the practitioner of technology in software and hardware engineering, with a smattering of related business and art.

      Letting in space is a trend towards diluting the content and discussion.

      1. 5

        I agree strongly with this. I’d rather see us going in the direction of removing the science tag rather than subdividing it into space.

        1. 1

          I often enjoy the content under the science tag, and I assume some others do too. I think it would be more beneficial to keep allowing uninterested users to filter the science tag rather than than removing it altogether.

          1. 5

            No, I’d rather have those users go somewhere else for science. Suppose 80% of users were interested in American politics–it still wouldn’t be appropriate for lobsters.

            1. 1

              Science and technology have a lot of overlap. If we’re going to ban science articles, we should probably ban culture, too. It’s better to allow anything within the general umbrella of ‘technology’ and let users filter anything they don’t like.

              1. 3

                My position is more nuanced than what I wrote. Here’s what I’ve written previously:

                I think we have a lot of tags that are clearly relevant to lobsters when they are tech focused (like culture, person, potentially government) but don’t make sense as standalone tags. For example, under “person” we could have an obituary for David Bowie, but it would probably be off-topic for lobsters.

                Maybe a good compromise would be to make these tags like the video / pdf tags, where they don’t stand by themselves, but instead qualify for lobsters because of the other tags? That way, if someone wanted to post something under the “person” tag, they would have to make sure they could add another, more lobsters-y tag, like “unix”.

                I think that we’re basically agreeing, but my concern is about the role of tags as gatekeepers for content. I don’t think some of our too-broad tags (like community, like science) are serving the community well.

                (repost of https://lobste.rs/s/ht7s9h/adding_policy_government_tag/comments/w70xki#c_w70xki)

                1. 1

                  Ah, but the culture tag is mostly used to address workplace practices and mores of developer ecosystems. As such, it is quite on topic for the softer side of the practice of software and hardware engineering.

                  I don’t disagree that science often overlaps with us, but the vast vast majority of science reporting and articles online that get linked around are feelgood garbage.

                  There is a very real Overton Window in action, and the feature creep of science and space goes basically something like:

                  1. “Science is kinda related to technology, so we should allow science submissions.”
                  2. “Space is a type of science, so we should allow pictures of space.”
                  3. “Pretty bird pictures involve biology, so that’s kinda like science and space, so let’s do that.”
                  4. “Well hey I found a cool set of pictures about things birds sit on and we allow bird pictures so yeah.”
                  5. “Here’s 12 things successful techies do to attract birds to their backyard.”
                  6. ah fuck it buzzfeed.

                  This is especially egregious with cogsci, culture, and politics, and signals the mid-stage cancer of an online community.

          2. 3

            Unfortunately, space articles tend towards popsci pieces that have very little real actionable information

            I don’t find articles with equations and schematics particularly actionable either.

            1. 2

              I don’t use Docker or BSD at the moment, but I still can appreciate that that content might be a handy reference later.

              If an article can’t make us better at something later, it probably shouldn’t be here–except for things like art which sort of have their own built-in dispensation.

            2. 3

              I don’t mind posts related to space so long as they are at least indirectly about technology and they fit my heuristic for any topic (be it programming, maths, biology, nanotech, medicine, &c.), which is to say, it meets either one of two criteria: 1) would I likely have not seen this content at all had it not been posted here or 2) do I think the fine folk here might have interesting information about or insights on the content. The latter in particular can be a delightful reason to see pop-ish content, because often a fellow crustacean will follow up with links that go into much more pleasing detail.

              </my2cents>

            3. 3

              Space stuff seems off-topic to Lobsters to me. In that sense I am in a paradoxical support of a space tag in that I could then filter the stuff, but am in opposition due to the inviting/encouraging message it sends.

              (I am interested in the subject, but I have never seen link aggregator communities do a good job at it. Almost everything that gets posted is targeted at the general public, if not outright fluff. Following a single good physics blogger or niche science news site cuts the dross and actually expands one’s horizons, in my experience. (Maybe if there were a link aggregator actually populated primarily by physicists, rather than just people with side interest in science, that could do the job.) So my interest in space stuff on Lobsters is modest at best.)