It’s terrifying to think what might happen to our nuclear-age civilization in the event of such a natural catastrophy. We seem so woefully unprepared.
Interesting article. Nothing to do with computers.
Hence the ‘science’ tag. There’s a range of topics covered by this tag over the years and sometimes something is just interesting.
+1 I appreciate any interesting content on Lobste.rs :)
It is interesting, but does it mean that lobste.rs is the place to post it? Imho, no.
Is there an official word on what is appropriate or not? That Other Site has IMHO a good guide to what’s on- and what’s off-topic.
When you post an article here, it says that if you cannot find a tag that fits your post, then it probably doesn’t belong here.
So, we have a rule for tech stuff only and a science tag. An apparent contradiction. There’s two interpretations:
Science articles are an exception to the tech rule since technologists are often interested in science.
One can only post articles that mix science and technology. Medical tech is an easy example here.
I don’t have a lot to go on since science submissions are pretty rare. I say rare since some stories with the tag maybe didn’t need it. Anyway, what little I’ve seen in terms of votes and enforcement says No. 1 is the de facto rule. The votes in this thread, esp for GeoffWozniak’s and Todd’s comments, corroborate No. 1 being the community’s preference. I waited a while to reply to make sure the votes didn’t swing.
This debate about what’s appropriate on a tech news aggregator site goes back at least 15 years, to slashdot and the like.
The closest we came to ideal was to describe the mix as a kind of omelette. Main parts consisting of tech stories, some science and related fields thrown in, with a pinch of just random interesting stuff and news from the scope of humanities.
It’s just my opinion but one of the things that keeps holding IT back is a myopic focus on purely technical matters, when in reality it’s more and more interconnected with different fields/areas, especially including areas falling under soft sciences.
They are often myopic. However, we can also specialize forums to focus on one thing. The people wanting this to be just tech, esp deep stuff, might be on other forums for politics, science, etc. Similarly, most people wouldn’t protest Popular Science blocking articles that do in-depth analysis of bills on C-SPAN. People interested in that stuff have law journals or blogs to read.
I mean, I’m sure there’s a hell of a lot of “tech” (in the narrow sense) involved in the analysis of the ice cores mentioned in the article.
Under interpretation 1, it wouldn’t matter since we allow science in general. Under No 2, write-ups on the tech behind the analysis would be allowed but not the original article.
So much science cannot be done without technology (would an article on how we take ice cores be on topic? Very few people here will ever have to take an ice core, but I would find such an article very interesting!) Is just reporting on the tech allowed, or are the conclusions drawn valid to discuss?
As long as there’s a “science” tag kind of article is on-topic. History is science after all [pdf]
Yes that’s why I was the first to flag this as off topic.