Comment by Xophmeister | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Xophmeister | Hacker News Reader

This is somewhat OT, but I've noticed a trend -- although I can't say how recent -- of headlines of the form "British [X] do [Amazing Thing]", particularly (but not necessarily) from the BBC. I note that the HN headline has been changed to "UK researchers" (IIRC, it said "British Scientists" earlier) and this BBC article doesn't actually use this phrase in their headline, but it appears prominently in the tagline.

This may be because I'm restricted to English language articles, but I don't see, for example, "Spanish researchers do [Amazing Thing]". Even in English, I don't regularly see "US/Australian/NZ/Canadian/South African/etc. [X] do [Amazing Thing]"; even though I'm sure plenty of amazing things have been done by these folks.

I understand that the popular press is directed towards the masses, but is the nationality/allegiance of [X] really so important? More so than their discovery/invention/whatever? I'm British and, in a time when populist nationalism is causing all kinds of problems, I'm not sure this rhetoric is helpful. Just be proud of the achievement.

How about just: "[Amazing Thing]"?

Or, if you want to associate it with people, to make it more personal and less "stark" (perhaps to sell it better): "Humanity achieves [Amazing Thing]".

I'm not seeing "British" anywhere in the article though it does say "UK-based team". I agree that highlighting the nationalities or country of residence of researchers is distracting at best and that your comment is OT for HN.

It's an item on BBC radio news today. And as I half listen to the radio the impression it gives is of the Brits making a breakthrough. Maybe Manchester Uni's marketing dept talk to the Beeb and got it on there. Who knows?

As I heard it I thought, this is an odd story. Firstly for the nationalist rhetoric, and secondly for the way it's phrased. It gives the impression of a sieve, much like a kitchen sieve, that can be used to instantly turn sea water into drinking water. Which is nowhere near the truth as far as I can tell.

Careful, your politics are showing. You're advocating a sort of leftist, post-national, globalised, post-structuralist agenda. Everyone is allowed a political opinion but it comes across as slightly disingenuous to couch it in factual / self evident terminology.

> populist nationalism is causing all kinds of problems

That is not a factual statement, it is a subjective political opinion. People on the other side of the fence think the opposite. From whence do you derive this claim to objective truth? Most of your point seems to be built on that statement, but its subjective nature makes it fall apart.

>> populist nationalism is causing all kinds of problems

> That is not a factual statement, it is a subjective political opinion.

I concede to this point. You are right: this perspective is completely subjective, when I was trying to make the objective point that science/progress doesn't care about nationality, etc. My argument's motivation was to highlight that the popular [British?] press not only dismisses this, but seemingly goes out of their way to push things in the other direction. Whether that's bad or not is very much ones opinion, but it is nonetheless objectively irrelevant modulo the scientific result and arguably "bad" in the sense that it is biased. It begs the question as to what is their (or their master's) end?

I didn't put it well. Thank you for pointing it out.

> in a time when populist nationalism is causing all kinds of problems

(I realize this forum will be almost overwhelmingly in favor of the above statement, but thought I would respond anyway to give an alternative viewpoint from outside).

What problems? Is it really causing problems, or is it just that you are politically opposed to it? The lack of nationalism I would say has caused far more problems over the last few decades (Mass clashing of cultures, rise of terrorism, global multi-nationals exploiting workers, not paying taxes etc, moving democracy and accountability further and further away from people).

If a family member achieved something you would naturally feel more "proud" than if it was a person in the world picked at random.

For some people, their nationality is important to them - an extended family of shared identity, culture, experiences and values. I would much much rather use a local taxi company, which will benefit my local community, friends, family, than use some faceless global thing like Uber, which will benefit some rich people in another country.

Further, competition is good. It's the way we achieve things. If a team of scientists in [other_country] see this news, they will likely be spurred on.

This is why things like the space race worked so well.

Well it's causing the UK to leave the EU which is a disaster by any measure, not including idiots wanting "control".

> Well it's causing the UK to leave the EU which is a disaster by any measure, not including idiots wanting "control".

So you're just politically opposed to it.

It's not a disaster if you're very much opposed to an EU superstate.

This is just a slippery slope fallacy. There was clear opposition to an EU superstate in many countries, there's no way the UK ever would have ended up in one. If anything, this makes a (smaller) EU superstate more likely.

Not by this measure... https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...

Sorry, but that site is garbage. See, for example, https://netzpolitik.org/2014/medienkompetenz-fuer-einsteiger...

I'm aware DWN is disliked by many. But an ad hominem criticism doesn't itself refute the facts reported by the article.

And in fact, Deutsche Banke actually made the reported announcements, as reported by Bloomberg.

Are the claims false when they're on a "bad" site, but simultaneously true when they're on a "good" site? Put differently, do you have a refutation of the DB recommendations that doesn't rely on a logical fallacy?

That's not what "ad hominem" means. They frame things in misleading ways, which disqualifies them from serious discussion. Not to note that the article reports opinions, not facts.

The Bloomberg article upon which this is based, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-23/deutsche-..., would have been the much better choice to link anyway since it's in English. What it says is that some DB analysts thinks German stocks are overvalued, and that British stocks could profit from the decline of the Pound's value. How does that imply that the UK is doing well? You just linked an article, claiming that it proves your point, but didn't say how.

No, it's exactly what ad hominem means. Technically, it means "criticizing the man", as opposed the argument. But modern usage absolutely encompasses "criticizing the source" as opposed to the argument. See how your last reply also does that?

The Bloomberg article makes the same basic point as DWN, which implies that the exact opposite of what "Remain" promoters predicted is happening. Many EU countries are tanking financially, with e.g. Italian banks requesting big bail outs to avoid collapse. Meanwhile capital is flowing into Britain. Focusing on the shades of spin in these various publications (which, yes, is there) sort of misses this main fact. I agree the Bloomberg article would have been a better choice on my part, sorry about that.

Apparently it's politically uncomfortable for you, but the evidence is mounting that letting the pound fall was what Britain needed to stimulate its economy. Deutche Bank has no political reason to recommend investors leave Germany, which was supposed to be the strongest country in Europe and invest in Britain, so a likely explanation for DB's recommendation is that it reflects the economic reality.

You continue to reduce the effects of the referendum to Deutsche Bank analysts' opinion on British and German stocks.

Why do you bring Italian banks into this? They are completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

It's not new or surprising that a falling currency is good for exports and can fuel an economy. Countries were and are regularly accused of manipulating their currencies to achieve that. The thing is that Brexit hasn't happened yet, so neither have its effects. Nobody knows whom it will affect or how. But the drop in the Pound's value is a clear sign that the markets don't have a whole lot of faith. If the Pound's weakness helps their economy now, then good for them. But it doesn't prove the point you think it does.

Nobody can predict the future, so claiming that predictions about it "reflect economic reality" is misleading. The recommendation is likely to represent the analyst's sincere expectation, though. I'm not arguing to the contrary.

>> It's not new or surprising that a falling currency is good for exports and can fuel an economy.

Except that was an argument promoted primarily by Leavers, who favored letting the currency fall, right?

The majority who where against Brexit predicted severe economic problems for Britain as a direct consequence of leaving what was characterized as "safety" of the EU. The relevance seems obvious, because the opposite is happening?

By the way I'm not reducing this to DB's analysis, that's why I hinted at the larger upturn for Britain and downturn for core EU countries in the wake of Brexit. There are other indicators... I would suggest looking on on your own.

I'm sorry that you think investment advice can have no bearing in economic reality... but in that light, I don't think it would be productive for us to continue.

Let me repeat: Britain hasn't left yet, negotiations for the terms of Brexit are just beginning.

I was rather hoping I wouldn't have to dig up old "BUY MORE TECH STOCKS" or "BUY MORE HOUSES" articles from the height of the dot-com bubble or US housing bubble to point out that analyst opinions aren't necessarily right.

AP News: "The countdown begins: Britain to start EU exit on March 29"

The markets are already factoring this in, dude. But that could be hard to see if you don't believe that markets embed any reliable information.

Exactly. Of course the markets only factor in what they understand, and sometimes they get it wrong.

But the relevant thing about it is that the market is betting in the real, hard money it trades with, not political punditry which is where the disaster is being pronounced.

It's far from clear that UK leaving EU is any kind of disaster.

I'm not from the UK but am in the EU, and I was hoping the Remain side would win the referendum. But I don't see UK leaving as a disaster, either, and after the referendum, the overblown hysteria related to Brexit has led me to see that in fact it maybe is a very wise thing to do for Brits and maybe we should follow. EU leaders and pundits seem so disconnected from reality: if this is an ultimate disaster, they are too deep gazing their own navels.

When I went to compulsory school I was taught that competition between nations is what caused the arms race that preluded World War I. I was also told that it was the feeling (in Germany) of being humiliated by the Versaille treaty, as a nation, that laid the ground for World War II.

I fail to see how nationalism is going to help solve terrorism, bad working conditions, tax evasion and dysfunctional democratic institutions.

I am afraid that nationalism will lead to decreased understanding of and less acceptance towards cultural differences.

From a completely practical standpoint, we gotta have adjectives, otherwise every science story will be "People do stuff!"

Fair enough to pick at which adjectives are used. I certainly find the nationality of the researchers more interesting than many other aspects, such as their hair color. Different nations have different cultures and policies towards things. Using nationality as an adjective might lead to productive conversations around how to make the species better. If so, that's a win. If all it does is promote mindless nationalism, it's a loss. So far, I'm not seeing anything to worry about -- and this title is much better than "Several Short, Brown-Haired People just did some Amazing Things with Beakers!" :)

ADD: It seems like my joking title should end with "And you won't believe #7!"

Thanks for your comment. This kinda thing can certainly get out of hand. So far we are very far away from that happening.

Is this a different headline on BBC.com? On BBC.co.uk the headline is what you say, [amazing thing?]

Yes, it is [amazing thing?] on bbc.com. But the point might be that the HN title should the same than the BBC one.

A quick search found this from 2013 so it's maybe just something they (the BBC) do: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21442095

I think your observation comes off sample bias. BBC articles come up on hacker news more than those from other national broadcasters mostly because he's in English and has regular reasonable articles on technology.

I think it's really the old 5-Ws training for journalists. Who, what, where, when, why. Then take the two biggest ones (in this case, who, what, where) and put them in the headline.

I regularly see "Swedish X does Amazing thing" here on HN.

It also exists in spanish press.

It's not about "press" in general, but about "quality press" which BBC aims or claims to be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com