488
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
488 points (93.4% liked)
Technology
55692 readers
2446 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Wait what? Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but this is what I got out of the article:
“We had anecdotes and preliminary evidence of a phenomenon. A robust scientific study showed no evidence of said phenomenon. Therefore, the phenomenon was previously real but has now stopped.”
That seems like really, really bad science. Or at least, really really bad science reporting. Like, if anecdotes are all it takes, here’s one from just a few weeks ago.
I left some Andrew Tate-esque stuff running overnight by accident and ended up having to delete my watch history to get my homepage back to how it was before.
From the quoted bit it sounds like there was credible science that found nothing. That doesn't mean there is nothing, but just that they found nothing.