At the same time, I think it's ok if news stories are not about only world-changing stuff. It can be about “mundane” stories of “this young person did something” too. We can read the story and give it space on the page, even if someone else is already doing the same thing better (?)
>It can be about “mundane” stories of “this young person did something” too.
Yes of course but your well-meaning reply is missing the argument made by gp: for some topics, the readers don't have enough background knowledge to know that it's a mundane story because the journalists are (possibly inadvertently) inflating the significance.
E.g. compare 2 different examples:
- "Teenager builds ramp to help nursing home patients in wheelchairs." <-- Readers already have enough background to know that "ramps" are common solutions to "wheelchair mobility" so the significance can easily be categorized as "mundane feel-good story". We can easily discount the ramp in the title and therefore properly appreciate that it's actually a human-interest story of a teenager doing something nice.
- "Teenager invents tool to spot elephant poachers." <-- Most readers have no existing knowledge of what technology is already in use to judge the significance of that type of story.
> Eikelboom cautions that Puri’s model still needs to be tested on raw video footage to see how well it can detect poachers—the accuracy of Puri’s model was tested using figures already determined either human or elephant. He also says other barriers already exist to using drones in parks, such as the money and manpower to keep them flying.
They also explain the technology choices and some of the other challenges.
Your issue is with the headline.
If all you read is the headline, then fine, let's play that game.
> It can be about “mundane” stories of “this young person did something” too.
"Yes of course"
Okay, that's it. You agree with the previous comment.
> for some topics, the readers don't have enough background knowledge to know that it's a mundane story
Why does it matter? The press does context-free puff-pieces all the time, even for professionals allegedly at the very top of their game (off the top of my head: Steve Jobs, Elizabeth Holmes[1], Elon Musk, Jeff Dean, and Sanjay Ghemawat to a lesser extent). Typically the template is "Genius expert invents X all by himself" without providing additional context for people outside of tech.
Food for thought: do you suppose journalists are exclusively wrong in tech reporting only? Or is this an area you have enough context to understand the nuances?
1. Sometimes the "revolutionary tech" is not just plain evolutionary, but fake. But a layperson reading the hagiography can't tell the difference
It seems your "Why does it matter?" was just a rhetorical question as prelude to your comment about puff pieces already existing in abundance ... But I'll answer it as if you had asked that question earnestly: It matters because readers would like to know how to gauge the significance of unfamiliar tech mentioned in the article.
So we have 2 interpretations of this thread's article:
(a) this poacher detection tool is a true breakthrough -- and the inventor also happens to be a teenager; the tech itself is not hype. The idea is truly a game changer and while the inventor's age is very young, that's a footnote to the tech invention.
... or ...
(b) the tool's tech (machine learning) is not significant and may not even work in the real world -- but the teenager's attempt at problem solving is showing promise of future things to come; let us celebrate this young person's effort.
A previous example of the first (a) type of story is this one a teen discovering a new classical algorithm comparable to a quantum algorithm:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17654220
That wasn't some pure human-interest puff piece about teenager Ewin Tang. Instead, a respected computer scientist (Scott Aaronson) said it was legitimate new work that advanced our understanding of the field.
>1. Sometimes the "revolutionary tech" is not just plain evolutionary, but fake. But a layperson reading the hagiography can't tell the difference
Right ... and readers don't want to mistakenly interpret the story as type (a) when it was actually type (b). The gp (Avalaxy) of the subthread tried to give us some extra perspective about this story that the journalist did not.
> It matters because readers would like to know how to gauge the significance of unfamiliar tech mentioned in the article.
I agree with you on principle: and it should happen across the board and not just reserved for science fair submissions, but the press seems incapable of that, for reasons good and bad. For one,evaluating new tech is subjective (and difficult), and for another, sone news puff pieces are mostly written by PR firms.
It depends, the followup is often unimpressive. Many people who did really impressive things in their youth ended up with quite mundane lives.
I mean it along the lines of "at 17, she is doing AI on IR images, at 30 she will be fixing bugs in traffic sign detection code for a big car company, with no mention of her name except in commit logs".
And it is not a bad thing! We need people to fix bugs in traffic sign detection code, and she may have a nice pay, in a reputable company, with a good work-life balance. It may not be impressive work, but it is work that needs to be done.
It may not be a feel good story for the press, but I believe living a mundane life certainly feels good to the one living it.
I'm somewhat confused by statements like these because they imply that the reason why we're mostly excited about it is not what she achieved but where she could potentially achieve many years later. Are these "years later" something exclusive to young people? I mean, if you're 40 years old doing exactly the same thing, and you're not retiring anytime soon it's safe to assume that you'll be working until your 50's and maybe beyond.
So then, are we celebrating the potential growth of a teenager more than that of the potential growth of a middle-aged person, on the grounds of potential, or are we celebrating that she managed to achieve this at 17?
I'm trying really hard to see beyond age. I don't care if someone is 16 or 36. Both can have the same years of experience (say 8-10 years of programming), and yet
the former sounds more romantic and sellable to headliners because it's easier to dream big about achievements someone in their 25 will do than someone in their 45. Why?
>I'm somewhat confused by statements like these because they imply that the reason why we're mostly excited about it is not what she achieved but where she could potentially achieve many years later.
Because people who become high-achieving outliers tend to distinguish themselves in their adolescence. It's the start of a virtuous cycle where talent + hard work leads to admission into elite institutions (universities and, later, companies) which lead to positive network effects which amplify the ongoing application of talent + hard work.
It's rare for a previously unremarkable 36-year-old to suddenly turn in to Jeff Bezos (for a lot of reasons, not least that cognitive power peaks at age 25 so learning and adapting to novel situations gets harder with age).
I'm a thoroughly average 33-year-old, for what it's worth :) I don't mean to imply that we shouldn't continue strive for growth and development as we age, but I certainly am not as mentally quick or energetic as I was ten years ago. There is very little chance I will suddenly transform into jwz or John Carmack or <insert name of legendary hacker here>.
On the bright side, I am a better communicator and strategic decision-maker, and am more satisfied with my life as it is.
I don't think you need to be at peak cognitive power for your contributions to be measurable and worth doing in society. No one would care about the age of the person who finds treatment for an autoimmune or teleportation.
Sure, you'll be delivering slower than what you would if you were 25 but slower is better than not delivering whatever unique you have to offer at all.
