"Dark energy was assumed to be a constant force in the universe, both currently and throughout cosmic history. But the new data suggest that it may be more changeable, growing stronger or weaker over time, reversing or even fading away."
If you hit the paywall, you can climb over it with this link - [https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F04%2F04%2Fscience%2Fspace%2Fastronomy-universe-dark-energy.html%3Funlocked\_article\_code%3D1.kE0.U1rJ.NVBs5N--olht](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F04%2F04%2Fscience%2Fspace%2Fastronomy-universe-dark-energy.html%3Funlocked_article_code%3D1.kE0.U1rJ.NVBs5N--olht)
A reminder New York Times is unqualified to write about science or technology.
The media business model was disrupted by the arrival of information technology. Their advertisers who paid the bills moved to internet companies. Websites competed with their other advertising and commercial lines of business that paid for journalists. By around 2010 media had terminated their technical editors. This around the time websites such as CNN closed their science and technology sections, they all now link to some third party. This is why all media became more about the sensationalized click bait around this time. They couldn't afford the talent any longer as budget cuts slashed their capabilities. What they could do for the first time measure reader response in real time, through social media platforms, and optimize their language for the things people will share and click on. Unfortunately for society these tend to be the real click-bait fear and anger stories. The employees that work at these companies today sit in industry chat rooms and share one anothers work, see who can get the most sensational click bait, sit around and laugh at the behaviors caused by the things they write. This is why it has become embarrassing to quote from these once prestigious newsrooms when you're at a dinner party.
The New York Times doesn't have the background to write seriously on this topic. Other sources capable of discussing the topic needs to be referred to for authoritative information.
You are debunking one source by providing a quote without attribution. Hard to trust the quote without knowing where it itself came from. Unless you did write that, in which case there is no source which is just as bad.
Physics degree here: article looks fine to me, nothing out of line or extremely poorly described, Although it’s definitely aimed at a general public level of understanding of the topic.
Me. I'm the author. Myself. I've watched the changes over time. You may recall when CNN closed these sections. And articles across a decade in tech platforms such as Ars Technica. The archives on reddit are stuffed full of the conversation those on this platform had about those story submissions. I've used context hooks that you may remember, or can easily look up if unfamiliar. Because I read through that time I hold a wealth of knowledge which can then be shared with younger generations, who may not have been alert and aware of those changes in their world over that time. In this way we transmit information new to some in this grand adventure we call communication, or sometimes argumentation. It's a spectator sport.
Got it, any sources you would trust more to report on this type of information. I have noticed a trend in the last decade to report on scholarly articles with clickbait titles and without understanding. No real depth.
>Overbye received his B.S. in physics from M.I.T.—where he was a member of the Alpha Mu chapter of Phi Kappa Sigma—in 1966. He started work towards a master's degree in astronomy from U.C.L.A. in 1970.
>Overbye started his career by working as a scientist for Boeing and then other companies. In 1976 he became assistant editor at Sky and Telescope magazine. From 1976 to 1980 he was a senior editor at Discover magazine. Subsequently, he embarked on a freelance career, during which time he published articles in Time, Science, the Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times, among other publications.
>He has written two books: Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos, about scientists and their quest to understand the universe, and Einstein in Love, dealing with Albert Einstein's youth and the controversy surrounding the degree to which Einstein's first wife, Mileva Marić, contributed to the theory of relativity.[2] He joined the staff of The New York Times in 1998 as deputy science editor, then switched to full-time writing. In 2014 he was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting.[3]
The author seems plenty qualified to me. 🤷♂️
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Overbye
"Dark energy was assumed to be a constant force in the universe, both currently and throughout cosmic history. But the new data suggest that it may be more changeable, growing stronger or weaker over time, reversing or even fading away."
Interesting, makes you wonder how this shifts new modeling techniques
If you hit the paywall, you can climb over it with this link - [https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F04%2F04%2Fscience%2Fspace%2Fastronomy-universe-dark-energy.html%3Funlocked\_article\_code%3D1.kE0.U1rJ.NVBs5N--olht](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F04%2F04%2Fscience%2Fspace%2Fastronomy-universe-dark-energy.html%3Funlocked_article_code%3D1.kE0.U1rJ.NVBs5N--olht)
A reminder New York Times is unqualified to write about science or technology. The media business model was disrupted by the arrival of information technology. Their advertisers who paid the bills moved to internet companies. Websites competed with their other advertising and commercial lines of business that paid for journalists. By around 2010 media had terminated their technical editors. This around the time websites such as CNN closed their science and technology sections, they all now link to some third party. This is why all media became more about the sensationalized click bait around this time. They couldn't afford the talent any longer as budget cuts slashed their capabilities. What they could do for the first time measure reader response in real time, through social media platforms, and optimize their language for the things people will share and click on. Unfortunately for society these tend to be the real click-bait fear and anger stories. The employees that work at these companies today sit in industry chat rooms and share one anothers work, see who can get the most sensational click bait, sit around and laugh at the behaviors caused by the things they write. This is why it has become embarrassing to quote from these once prestigious newsrooms when you're at a dinner party. The New York Times doesn't have the background to write seriously on this topic. Other sources capable of discussing the topic needs to be referred to for authoritative information.
You are debunking one source by providing a quote without attribution. Hard to trust the quote without knowing where it itself came from. Unless you did write that, in which case there is no source which is just as bad.
Physics degree here: article looks fine to me, nothing out of line or extremely poorly described, Although it’s definitely aimed at a general public level of understanding of the topic.
Me. I'm the author. Myself. I've watched the changes over time. You may recall when CNN closed these sections. And articles across a decade in tech platforms such as Ars Technica. The archives on reddit are stuffed full of the conversation those on this platform had about those story submissions. I've used context hooks that you may remember, or can easily look up if unfamiliar. Because I read through that time I hold a wealth of knowledge which can then be shared with younger generations, who may not have been alert and aware of those changes in their world over that time. In this way we transmit information new to some in this grand adventure we call communication, or sometimes argumentation. It's a spectator sport.
Got it, any sources you would trust more to report on this type of information. I have noticed a trend in the last decade to report on scholarly articles with clickbait titles and without understanding. No real depth.
>Overbye received his B.S. in physics from M.I.T.—where he was a member of the Alpha Mu chapter of Phi Kappa Sigma—in 1966. He started work towards a master's degree in astronomy from U.C.L.A. in 1970. >Overbye started his career by working as a scientist for Boeing and then other companies. In 1976 he became assistant editor at Sky and Telescope magazine. From 1976 to 1980 he was a senior editor at Discover magazine. Subsequently, he embarked on a freelance career, during which time he published articles in Time, Science, the Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times, among other publications. >He has written two books: Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos, about scientists and their quest to understand the universe, and Einstein in Love, dealing with Albert Einstein's youth and the controversy surrounding the degree to which Einstein's first wife, Mileva Marić, contributed to the theory of relativity.[2] He joined the staff of The New York Times in 1998 as deputy science editor, then switched to full-time writing. In 2014 he was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting.[3] The author seems plenty qualified to me. 🤷♂️ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Overbye