
Something Deep Inside Pluto Is Replenishing Its Atmosphere - happyscrappy
http://www.wired.com/2015/08/something-deep-inside-pluto-replenishing-atmosphere/?mbid=nl_81915
======
rubidium
Ug. Article is terrible. I quote: "Considering that Pluto has been around for
more than four billion years, the odds are pretty friggin’ slim that humans
would meet the dwarf planet during its brief phase of atmosphere-having. No,
something is replenishing the supply. Scientists, you got some ‘splaining to
do."

What is this, third grade. Here's the actual science:
[http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/808/2/L50/pdf/2041-8205_...](http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/808/2/L50/pdf/2041-8205_808_2_L50.pdf)

~~~
aaron695
> What is this, third grade.

What are we, in a retirement village?

As long as the science is good, I don't care how it was written. Could we at
least get the reporting to be factual before we worry about proper style.

And I thought it was kinda novel unlike the research paper which is a pretty
hard read for someone not researching this topic.

~~~
coldtea
> _As long as the science is good, I don 't care how it was written._

That's a bad attitude to have. Sloppy writing messes the science the same as
sloppy measurements. Science is not some inate quality, it stands by how well
it's communicated.

~~~
im3w1l
I can't help it but.. do you have any science to back up that this no-nonsense
style is harmful? I much prefer it to the style of long, winding sentences
full of jargon and old, uncommon words.

My feeling is that the former is more encouraging of critical thinking, since
the errors stand out more. The latter style can make you think that maybe it
is just me that is too stupid to understand. What the more complicated style
has going for it I guess, is that it can exclude the uneducated, and it may
also serve as behavioural cue to put you in a scientific state of mind.
Clothes are known to do this [0].

Personally, I still prefer the casual style.

[0]
[http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/02/194855061557...](http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/02/1948550615579462.abstract)

------
jessaustin
Wired editors should investigate a valuable technique for clarity of
expression: scientific notation.

~~~
blowski
It's journalism. It's not about accuracy or clarity, but the impression it
makes on the reader. All those zeroes make a bigger impression.

~~~
scarmig
And I thought analogies in scientific journalism were annoying. I certainly
prefer them to this.

What's biggest:

    
    
      7000000000000000000000 grams
      
      700000000000 gigagrams
      
      70000000000000000000000000 milligrams
      
      The mass of Ceres
      
      The mass of the water currently in the Pacific Ocean
      
      The mass of the Earth's atmosphere
    
      The mass of Mt Everest

~~~
cabirum
57900000000000 refrigerators

[http://recoveringphysicist.com/23/journalistic-units-of-
meas...](http://recoveringphysicist.com/23/journalistic-units-of-measure)

~~~
Eldandan
Well then! It's settled.

------
remarkEon
-> Pluto has been around for about four billion years, and according to the best math, it should have lost about 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams of nitrogen (give or take a zero) since then.

What is "the best math"? Is it better than "the good math"? I get the whole
writing for pop-sci thing that's in vogue right now, but being cavalier with
significant figures or being imprecise with language leads to a shallow
understanding of the topic presented. Especially when writing about space,
where it's already difficult to convey the scale of what's described.

~~~
rev_bird
I'm not debating the whole "cavalier with significant figures or being
imprecise with language" bit, but "the best math" seems to mean "the most
likely guess given current information."

------
timharding
Unreadable.

------
datalus
Aliens.

