“3M Execs convinced a Scientist PFOS Found”… ok, the PFOS found the scientist?
“3M Execs convinced a Scientist PFOS found in Human Blood”… PFOS found a scientist in human blood?
The problem is that there are gramatically valid ways to parse partial versions of the sentence, which you have to reparse as you go through the sentence.
That's what I immediately understood the title to mean... Is this not what the title is saying? I'm confused as to why people are having trouble understanding it.
This got me curious enough to skim the article looking for the answer to whether 3M "convinced" her. It looks like the answer is:
* They kept relevant information from her, including studies they'd done on the subject before
* They sidelined her research efforts and made her feel unwelcome there
* She grew to dread the subject and avoided staying involved with it
* "when friends asked Hansen about PFAS, she would change the subject. Still, she repeatedly told [her husband] — and herself — that the chemicals were safe."
I guess you could read that as saying 3M "convinced" her if you really wanted to, but I'd have looked for a different way to describe it. It helps to remember that article authors don't usually get to write the headline.
Context from the article I feel is necessary, here. She was pretty haunted by how it might be affecting her kids too. That's one of those "do I really want to go down this dark path" things, something which would've taken such a toll on her that she decided not to go there, now she had to focus on raising a family...
> But first, she decided to have one last blood sample tested for PFOS: her own. The results showed one of the lowest readings she’d seen in human blood. Immediately, she thought of the rats that had passed the chemical on to their pups.
> Hansen told me that, for the next 19 years, she avoided the subject of fluorochemicals with the same intensity with which she had once pursued it. She focused on raising her kids
She WAS meticulous in her research for YEARS, but ultimately held too much unquestioning trust in the company line that PFOS was safe. She got worn down and burned out... Which is pretty understandable.
At one point TFA quotes her asking her husband to walk her through the car park after work lest she be threatened by other 3M employees who now saw her as some kind of traitor, so at one time she was pretty worried about being victim of a Boeing-Type Incident.
If you want people to remain scientific, you gotta foster a culture in which it is safe to do so, and the impact of the findings matches its significance.
Apparently the theory is that the word "How" in titles is always meaningless clickbait so HN automatically removes it. I don't believe this actually improves things.
Not to mention the overuse of the term "gaslighting". What used to mean a serious systematic method of making someone question reality is now simply "lied", apparently.
I thought the rule was to keep the title the same as the article? The title is: "Toxic Gaslighting: How 3M Executives Convinced a Scientist the Forever Chemicals She Found in Human Blood Were Safe"
And they never stick to one app long enough to get the benefits. Constantly switching, looking for better and faster. I switched to index cards, and honestly, I don't miss digital FOMO.
When I opened the app, I instantly started writing -- and that is good. I already have a half of an essay. Didn't use the notes feature, though -- I think it doesn't work in shorter writings, but is essential in long-form.
I have been writing with paper index cards for a while now. I think using paper cards is still superior: you can arrange them in any pattern you want. Many apps try to emulate the "solitaire" side of writing, but I haven't found anything comparable to analog, yet.
>> I recently moved back to Colorado, where for many decades it's commonplace for people to drive everywhere with their high beams always on
Don't they teach in the driving school that you should turn off the high beams when you see a car?
I remember I was taught to turn off the high beams when the car (doesn't matter if you are behind the card or it's coming from opposite direction) is approximately 300m away, or when our lights start to cross each other.
Also, forgetting to turn the beams on and off at night is a good indicator that you are slowly falling asleep behind the wheel.
> Don't they teach in the driving school that you should turn off the high beams when you see a car?
They do. They also teach you to not speed, to keep a safe distance, to signal lane changes, to stop at a red light, not to run a STOP sign, to yield at a YIELD sign, and generally speaking, to avoid dangerous things.
Sometimes people forget, sometimes people don't pay attention. and sometimes, people just don't care.
> Don't they teach in the driving school that you should turn off the high beams when you see a car?
Most Americans don't go to driving school. There are generally deeply lax requirements to be licensed to drive in the US. In Colorado, people are concerned with animal strikes on highways, so run high beams at night to see farther ahead rather than slowing down. It's dumb, but it is what happens.
When medium decided that, as a writer, you need to have at least 100 followers to be able to get paid, the rules of the game changed. All I saw was articles about how to get your first 100 followers and how somebody made lots of money writing on medium. Clickbait titles, follow-back culture.
no -- in previous eras, the brand name of the publication built expectation from the readers. If you want long form, high brow content then you look for it; if you are browsing for entertainment and not an intellectual, then ad-filled publications are pushed at you.. lots in between with topic-focused publications. The magazine rack of 1984 has not been replaced and readers are suffering for it... IMO
