In the dead of night, a deafening war | Hacker News Reader

In the dead of night, a deafening war

atmos.earth

39 pointsmeanie8 comments

“We know so little. We oftentimes as human beings tend to focus on things that we can see or perceive directly, and we have to remember that the world is not necessarily designed for us.” - Dr. Akito Kawahara, Entomologist

Ha, I like this guy already.

"Stupid fly can't get out because of the glass" - yes, the window was not designed with flies in mind.

"Look at this great Li-Fi bulb. It's perfectly safe for humans" - ah yes, because only humans exist in the house

"Look at our amazing new seafloor beacons!" - zero consideration for aquatic life

There are countless examples like that. It's almost as if making things harder for everyone else is the point

Out of curiosity: how long did it take you to realize there were links in the article? For me, it took 3 screens.

I didn't realize either. I'm kind of glad, I think links in articles are an anti-pattern.

Serifs are an interesting way to indicate a link. It was just enough to catch my eye but if I were reading on my phone I doubt the links would have been noticeable.

This article reminded me of the connection between the evolution of various caterpillars and brassicas as they developed glucosinolates to fight off the caterpillars.

* If War Means Everything, It Means Nothing *

If we cannot define war, it is difficult to recognise the differences between war, conflict, and competition.

Australian Army Research Centre (AARC)

https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/library/land-power-forum/...

The article is interesting, but indeed falls in the category of journalistic hyperinflation. It's not a war, if only because winning would mean dying, but it is a form of struggle.

About the article: the mechanisms moths have at their disposal are nicely described, but there's little to nothing about the bats' side. The title is word inflation at its finest, not only because it uses "war", but also "deafening", which isn't justified in the article. Worse, if it were deafening, the echo location would probably not work. The writing is simply bad:

> Their age-old conflict, albeit gruesome and lethal,

Albeit? Is there really a contrast between conflict and gruesome and lethal? And what about this gem:

> With sensitive enough hearing organs, a moth can detect an echolocation click from far away and escape before a bat has the time and capacity to perceive its own echo.

The reading "the moth escapes with its ears" should have been caught and removed. Worse is that it takes only a fraction of a second for an echo to return, as sound travels at 300m/s. Moths are sluggish in flight, so they can't really escape in that time. The sentence should probably have been written as: "A moth can detect a click from far away with its sensitive ears, and escape before the bat is close enough to perceive the echo."

Albeit means "although it be", or "even though it is" to use a less archaic construction.

But that expresses contrast. "It's a conflict, even though it is gruesome and lethal" is simply a bad sentence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com