'Boaty McBoatface' polar ship named after David Attenborough
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
This is probably the first time that an open Internet poll has finally chosen a name that is fun and kid-friendly instead of "Hitler did nothing wrong" and they have decided to waste all the PR potential.
I'm being downvoted for this but trust me, that is the message teenagers would takeaway from the name Boaty McBoatface.
"The scientists on this ship have a sense of humour and are fun people" meaning that while they take the science seriously, the are approachable and not too worried about what you call their ship.
Also, Sir David Attenborough is a national treasure and while I would have preferred the funny name, this is a very solid alternative.
My anecdotes and general 'intuition' (as unscientific as these things always are) are opposite to yours.
I think it'd be viewed positively and wouldn't have the opposite effect as you suggest.
However, my children, many of their friends and some of their teachers are now aware that the UK is commissioning a polar research vessel. They definitely weren't before.
I know of at least one junior school science teacher who has used this to seed a lesson. It's a point of interest, it's the start of a conversation. It gives science a different angle and a bit of colour. This is a good thing even if it was by accident. Sometimes we should just take the hand we were dealt and play it.
A rather impressive video [0] of RRS Sir Ernesto Shackleton being droned.
Conversely, they really really hate when government bureaucrats show them that democracy can be a farce and people's choices are worthless.
Teenagers are on a complicated phase of life where adults ask them their opinions as if they were adults too, but then when they don't like the answers, use their power to override them. Which is exactly what transpires of this whole process.
Yes, let's ignore the people who bother to vote because they are not the right sort of people. Instead, we'll do what our idea of a 'rational' voter would want /s
And as I pointed out in an earlier thread, it's not like the Royal Navy ships never had playful names; some past examples include the HMS Speedy, HMS Child's Play, HMS Happy Entrance and HMS Arrogant (later renamed HMS Insolent).
Far fetched I agree, but that's the message being sent.
That being said, I'm happy with their choice. Sir David is a great thing to name something after.
Yap, it is a valuable lesson of how the real world works. The people can only choose as long as they choose what those in power let them choose.
Mind you the current outcome is more "adults don't take public opinion seriously".
Alternately:
"Your suspicions are correct. There is no room for fun or playfulness in Science."
Since the research vessels advanced submersible ROV is being named "Boaty McBoatface", they still essentially can, though to be as accurate it would have to be "Hey, Boaty McBoatface is coming to port this Saturday onboard the Sir David Attenborough! Why don't you bring your kids to a fun science tour?".
I agree though and hhave argued that the campaign was genius -- inspired or accidental. You can't buy this kind of publicity. Especially for science.
As for recent college graduates, they might well take a look at the swift mending hands of bureaucracy in this situation, and draw some pretty accurate conclusions about the stiff deeply unsilly hierarchy under which they'd be working.
In a more serious response, as a young researcher, let me assure you that when a position opens on a superb research facility such as this, we would fight for it even if it was called the RSS Hitler Did Nothing Wrong. The PR main target here is not researchers/employees, it is the public and specially kids.
Whimsy is a good thing.
I have always been a great fan of Dada, Surrealism, and Discordianism. So I am somewhat disappointed that it seems so dreadfully important to unwaveringly maintain the illusion that science is Serious Business. There is a time and place for both whimsy and gravitas in all aspects of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Splashy_Pants
> After their initial reluctance Greenpeace embraced the result of the popular vote and used the name at the center of its campaign. The added publicity, at no cost to Greenpeace, gave it enough impact to convince the Japanese government, and the plan to hunt Humpback whales was abandoned in December 2007.
> In Campaign Magazine, advertising guru Russell Davies praised Greenpeace's handling of the campaign as "one of the defining moments in New Media marketing." The name has since spawned clothing, logos, flashvideos, and the slogan "Save Mister Splashy Pants."
Then there is this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/04/25/tru...
Well said. A "cynical lesson on democracy", and the hollow term is currently is (and maybe always was).
yes. Using extremely famous memes only proves the effects they have had on our culture.
Incidentally, I think that the boat isn't long enough to have his full name with honorifics painted on the side. It is David Frederick Attenborough OM CH CVO CBE FRS FLS FZS FSA.
Another way of looking at the situation is - the UK Science Minister is hired to fill a spot, and make science seem, "serious," and have "authority," so that the general public feels that their tax dollars are going to something worthwhile. That would actually mean that in a sense, democracy is prevailing, because the majority of society would rather abstract away the details of science, they just see it as some authority which brings, "good things." I'm not talking about people on the internet who vote on social media, I'm talking about everyone--including that grandma in Scotland who is not on the internet at all.
For those who are strictly practicing empirical data collection, who dare I say, are better pure scientists within the online data collection domain, they may say, "this result had the most votes, so therefore this is the name which wins." But if you're the UK Science Minister, you likely are afraid of losing your job, and afraid of a blowback, knowing that a lot of people will reject that name and have never heard of this voting system. He/she likely is aware of the plushy toy opportunity, but has evaluated that and it pales in comparison to how much money the British Government could continue to get from taxpayers. In effect what you are saying is that you could do a better job than him in evaluating where money comes from for these types of endeavors.
According to your logic we should all feel cynical and contemptuous that Mountain Dew is not now named, "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong."
Why does science need to seem serious? The Mythbusters tremendously advanced the cause of science, and they did it in no small part by not taking themselves too seriously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cvGGxTsQx0
(Video of the first SpaceX attempted landing and explosion).
Personally I think that's a bit of a stretch, but I'm not trying to say the show isn't great. While scientists could learn from their format (providing videos of their experiments, for instance) I wouldn't say that the mythbusters have advanced the cause of science at all. Would you say that the TV show Bill Nye the science guy advanced the cause of science? Science education he has definitely advanced the cause of, but science: not from the TV show. Similarly, I think the mythbusters have advanced engineering education tremendously, specifically television engineering education.
If you think they have actually advanced the cause of science, I would love to hear why. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just speaking from having watched a few episodes, so I definitely could be wrong.
Science classes in school rarely advance anything other than the number of scientists in the world and the lay public's understanding.
I just now watched this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGRRXKek8G0
and it's just horrible. To my eye, Nye is indistinguishable from a Creationist caricature.
Compare that to how the Mythbusters handled the moon landing conspiracy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0
The Mythbusters actually did real science, and they did it with style and panache and grace. They started with a problem, advanced a hypothesis, designed an experiment (often a series of experiments) analyzed the results, drew conclusions, and often went back and re-did things when a viewer pointed out something they did wrong. That is science. They democratized science in a way that no one else has ever done. A kid watching Mythbusters could come away thinking that science was something that they could do themselves. Ultimately, the Mythbusters advanced science by busting the myth that science can only be done by scientists.
Also, before you start hating on Bill Nye so hard, please compare his reported scientific contributions[1] to Jamie Hyneman's and Adam Savage's (spoiler, theirs don't seem to exist). Last point about Nye: bow ties are ok. Seriously though, people don't hate on Feynman for having long hair or being a supposed sex swinger. I know Nye doesn't have the same prestige, but it's just a bow tie; I think you should give him a break.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye#Scientific_work
Note: Bill Nye also engineered a part that was used in the 747 while he worked at Boeing
Why not?
> theirs don't seem to exist
> bow ties are ok
Of course bow ties are OK. Nonetheless, a scientist wearing a bow tie reinforces negative stereotypes. It's sad, but true.
> people don't hate on Feynman for having long hair or being a supposed sex swinger
That's because Feynman didn't do those things on TV. If Bill Nye wants to wear a tutu in his private life, more power to him. But if he wears one on a TV show about science I think that would indicate some really poor judgement on his part.
> Bill Nye also engineered a part that was used in the 747 while he worked at Boeing
So? What does that have to do with the Mythbusters?
Can you extrapolate on this? Is there something about bow ties that I'm completely ignorant about?
Unless you're going to argue people should never do anything that is "stereotypical" of "that kind of person" I see no reason he shouldn't wear a bow tie.
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/fashion/sundaystyles/a-red...
The relevant quotes from the wikipedia article are:
"the bow tie is ... an instant sign of nerddom ... not the mark of a ladies' man ... not sexy. Most men ... only wear bow ties with formal dress."
The last sentence is significant. Wearing a bow tie in an informal setting broadcasts an unawareness of (or an uncaring for) social norms (specifically, the social norm that bow ties are formal wear). Hence, it reinforces the negative stereotype of the scientist as someone whose social status is outside the mainstream, an "other", a position to be avoided rather than aspired to.
Its actually not that at all. While "most men ... only wear bow ties with formal dress" is true, that is not because bow ties in general are formal dress. The specific forms of bow ties which are formal dress are not what the small minority of men who wear bow ties in other contexts generally wear. They wear forms that are understood (or were, when they were in fashion) as informal dress, which are quite distinct. They just aren't currently popular fashion.
Well yeah, sure, but that doesn't help the situation at all. Clowns, for example, wear bow ties informally, but that's not exactly the kind of image I would like scientists to associate themselves with either. Yes, there was a time when bow ties were fashionable as non-formal wear among non-clowns, but as you yourself point out, those days are long gone.
Which to me is a good thing. The sooner "social norms" die out, the better. They're the source of many issues - and especially the source of the form of identity politics that exist today. The refusal to accept people who are "outside the social norm" and instead ostracize them for failing to "fit in" is the problem, in more ways than one, from my point of view.
>Hence, it reinforces the negative stereotype of the scientist as someone whose social status is outside the mainstream, an "other", a position to be avoided rather than aspired to.
Another way of saying this: It sends a positive message that you can be whatever you want to be, no matter how "weird" or "different" you are from society. That you can be yourself instead of what others wish to see you as. Even if you have a quirky or dated fashion sense.
I'll agree with you on the pedantry. I feel there is a time and place to be a pedant - and most of that is when it is mission critical or in academic work. It gets in the way of communication more times than it helps.
You surely don't mean that. What you probably mean is something more like, "The sooner social norms that I don't like die out, the better." Humans are social animals, and hence social norms are an indispensable part of the human condition.
I totally agree that the world would be a better place if people didn't have to worry so much about what they wore. But you have to pick your battles, and I think there are bigger fish to fry.
In the general sense of the word, it does qualify. However, my personal definition of doing science requires devotion toward advancement in a specific scientific field. I don't think that definition is actually uncommon. Specifically, few scientists (physicists, chemists, astronomers, biologists, etc...) will ever reference the work of the Mythbusters in their studies or attempts at explaining the universe or aspects of it. Bill Nye would be more likely to be referenced (at least by an aeronautical engineer), in my opinion, but like I said I don't imagine that's either's main focus; that is education. Mythbusters is specifically devoted to applying the scientific method to debunking myths, and that's awesome, but since they're not devoted to advancing a scientific field, I don't see what they do as science. As a far fetched analogy: if I apply the scientific method to blogging, it doesn't mean I'm doing science.
The Mythbusters were not professional scientists (they were professional entertainers), but they absolutely did science. And they did good science. Your dismissal of them is IMHO a symptom of the problem that they more than anyone else took a step toward solving.
Saving face how? It seemed to me he received a ton of criticism for not going with the name the majority voted for.
Gushing Granny was more popular.
Can't you just see the series of children's books about Boaty McBoatface and all the incredible science adventures it has—a Magic School Bus 2.0?
Many people taking themselves too seriously. It's a shame.
But then again, why not have both? I think a drone called Boaty McBoatface could get into all kinds of crazy trouble, only to be bailed out by the wise old mothership, Sir David Attenborough.
Could actually work out really well. I may just have to start working on my new kids book series "Curious Boaty, the cheeky little ROS (Remotely Operated Submarine)" - with related merchandise, a toy ROS with HD video and sampling claw that can be operated from your Android or iOS phone/tablet
There are so many research vessels. Can't one at least be fun, playful and a little bit ridiculous. People are desperately trying to tell institutions (not just in this situation but also in politics) that being honest and more connected with the ordinary person on the street is a virtue.
But, for the UK at least, I think it would connect with a lot of people, and for a longer time.
Unfortunately, sometimes we take our selves too seriously. Especially when millions of monetary units are involved...
Imagine this A/B test - two classrooms of 6 year old kids. Ask one if they want to hear about the amazing research being done onboard the ship named after Attenborough. In the other ask if they want to hear about the adventures of Boaty McBoatface. Boaty would win every time.
> In a stunning move, Buckingham Palace announces
> that the former David Attenborough will now be
> known as “Sir Naturalist McNatureface, OBE."However, what did the organisation (NERC) expect when they gave a free choice for the names of the boat. They would have been far better having a poll of say 5 names which had been pre-selected.
But why couldn't the main vessel itself have carried the name?
Here's one reason: imagine the ship were to get into trouble at some point in the future.
Imagine the headlines.
Remember, the places it will work are extremely hostile; they are dangerous.
Boaty McBoatface was an awesome name. Such a missed opportunity...
On the other hand ... there'd still be more publicity for the research programme. How much coverage was there for the prosaically named Ocean Researcher V when it sank, resulting in death of two researchers?
He didn't want any widows to receive a letter stating that 'It is with utmost regret we inform you that your husband died heroically for the Empire during the execution of operation PINK UNDIES' or something of the sort.
Makes a lot of sense.
After their initial reluctance Greenpeace embraced the result of the popular vote and used the name at the center of its campaign. The added publicity, at no cost to Greenpeace, gave it enough impact to convince the Japanese government, and the plan to hunt Humpback whales was abandoned in December 2007
Now that is a great result.
So they cleverly side-stepped the Boaty issue by picking a name to which people can't object without being accused of picking on a "nice" 90-year-old man. I don't think that's a good basis for a naming policy.
I'm sure there are many publicly-anonymous actual research scientists who could have received this honour instead and BIS / NERC could still have thrown the Boaty-as-ROV bone to the voters.
Old men develop new scandals. Joe Paterno. Bill Cosby. Various Catholic bishops and cardinals.
If you're worried about bad press, better pick people who have been dead for some time.
With respect to Attenborough, the RRS David Attenborough is a very unexciting choice and isn't going to do anything at all to raise the profile of environmental research.
Seems fitting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat
Though frankly I think RemoteyMcBoatface would be good here :-)
Here's a more verbose explanation which comes down to the same thing: http://www.subvetpaul.com/WhyBoats.htm
Since WWII names stuck by role of ship. Now we have all kinds of propaganda pieces floating around and ship classification names don't mean anything anymore. A "frigate" might be anything except oil tanker or CATOBAR carrier.
If you would use WWII classification by top speed and tonnage and apply it to modern vessels, Ohio class submarine would be "Submarine Heavy Cruiser" and Typhoon would be "Submarine Battleship".
http://i.imgur.com/A6kjWfU.gif
Here is the MV Blue Marlin carrying TWO minesweeper ships (USS Cardinal and USS Raven):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cardinal_(MHC-60)#/media/F...
And here carrying the hull of the HMAS Canberra (the MV Blue Marlin is semi submerged):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Canberra_(L02)#/media/Fil...
The USN being dry - the effect of the UK's stronger beers can have unfortunate consequences.
http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/04/18/us-military-intr...
As such, the suggestion of UBoatyMcUBoatface for a British sub is going to fly like a lead Zeppelin.
If an organization decides to use a social media contest like this to promote themselves, they should have a social responsibility to adhere to the demands of the people.
"Boaty McBoatface" was a good name.
OK, I don't but that would ruin the joke.
So many of our problems could be fixed by limiting the population of the human race. To be clear, I'm not proposing a solution for doing so nor am I saying the ends would justify the means for how this is reached. However can you not agree that climate change, pollution, resource shortages, etc are caused by having too many people on this planet? This is especially true if people in first-world countries want to continue their lives of excess.
The only reason to keep growing in population is to add fuel to the economic fire, so to speak. This is not a sustainable trend though.
Wait, what. [1]
Both simply appealed to the public as an experiment and learned that a large swath of the public feels it has no power and finds it empowering, now that they finally have their hands on the steering wheel, to flip the car rather than drive it. Children who haven't been given much autonomy will often have the same mentality: when finally given power they will be destructive because it's a better test of the reality of the new-found power.
>We're building on the #BoatyMcBoatface spirit with a £1m Polar Explorer programme to inspire the next generation of scientists and explorers
Also really kudos to them, Boaty McBoatface made everyone smile when they heard the name and got them interested; Sir David Attenborough however... doesn't make that effect.
In a surprise move, Sir David Attenborough legally changes his name to Boaty McBoatface in support of the Internet hordes. Facing waning popularity, this maneuver is seen as a means of returning to the cult-icon status days he experienced as a broadcaster. When asked for comment, Sir McBoatface stated "I'm a few days short of my ninetieth birthday and let's face it - once I'm gone nobody's going to remember a name like Attenborough. As Boaty McBoatface, my name will actually be remembered. Would you like fries with that?"
Although I still feel that if you're going to go through with it you should stick with the results. Silly people.
Stay classy, HN.
If you disagree you shouldn't just downvote regardless.
Which is probably the usual reason people downvote. And it's a shit reason.
Downvoting (ie, trying to bury or hide a post) because someone says sumfing u don't wike is pathetic and childish; if you disagree either argue against it or move on.
Downvotes (if they have to exist) should be reserved for posts that are objectively non-constructive (as in posts that don't make any argument, whether you agree with it or not, or add anything to a discussion).
"non-constructive" is always subjective, so this is an oxymoron.
Let's say someone here posts "fuck off" or "you're an idiot". Please explain how that can be interpreted as constructive to a discussion here.
Edit: Wow, people who childishly downvote certainly don't like to be called out about their childish downvoting. :)
People will even get the moderator to remove your comments and the moderator may make claims that your comments are "off-topic" if too many downmodders attach to your comment.
The moderator will even alter text you post without notice. HN is not a serious discussion forum, but a marketing exercise for a VC fund.
(I've seen threads where some of the wackiest, most inexplicable downvoting is going on, I almost wonder if it's the site deliberately trying to stir up activity/controversy.)
In this thread it's becoming quite pathetic and ridiculous that people are unable to explain or back up the point they have made when I ask, and yet I get downvoted. On every post. This one will be no exception. (Edit: and it wasn't.)
I assumed this was a serious place, and liked the idea of rules to keep a civil and theoretically high quality discussion, but the abuse of downvoting by infantile people just destroys it.
dang, I assume you meant stop bickering, but if you absolutely mean no more posts, sorry for this. It will probably be the last anyway.
I'm just curious, since you (ferrari) and anyone else still reading this have more knowledge or experience about this, has any site, or even HN, ever tried making the usernames people who upvote and downvote publicly visible?
I think people would put more thought into what they up or (especially) downvote if they could not 'hide', and their usernames were attached to it. Likewise, if voting had a 'cost', say, 1 karma to upvote and 1 or 2 karma to downvote.
A top poster with privilege, tptacek, claimed on a detached (by dang) thread that seeing who downmods me is "really none of [my] business"[0]. I would guess the same applies to you.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10955220
[Still don't get how that comment was "off-topic"]
Two are downvoted for asking someone to clarify their argument and for rebutting someone else's incorrect point. Or they're downvoted because some people simply downvoted every post I made, because I made it.
I'm mostly being downvoted by people who downvote opinions they don't agree with, or people they don't like, just as other people are in this thread, and which happens in other threads all the time.
> https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Avoid gratuitous negativity.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument
> it makes boring reading.
If HN is against negativity, then maybe it should not have a button that expresses pure negativity.
And if something is being complained about so often there have to be two rules against it, maybe it's time to get rid of the (non-constructive) thing so many people are complaining about.
If people want to reward discussions or comments, or have them rise to the top, they can achieve such by pressing the up button (which AFAIK is how it works on the submissions - no downvote).
The only reason a downvote is necessary is to provide childish, fragile people a way to 'hide' or 'punish' opinions or people they don't like but are too incapable/lazy to refute.
Since I doubt I'm the first person to make these points, and suspect nothing will change after this post, I guess it's deliberate HN policy to pander to such people.
It should be fucking obvious that insults are a quick way to attract many downvotes.
And downvoting someone because they call specific downvoting childish? That seems like the epitome of childishness to me, and simply validates my point.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11644954
> Downvoting (ie, trying to bury or hide a post) because someone says sumfing u don't wike is pathetic and childish; if you disagree either argue against it or move on.
The rest of your comments increase the attack.
You are getting downvotes because your posts go on a meta tangent, and use insults. Stuff like this...
> umfing u don't wike is pathetic and childish
... is obviously going to get downvoted.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11645104
Or this one (also with a lower score):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11645505
> is obviously going to get downvoted.
For the baby language, maybe, but downvoting something you don't personally like is pathetic and childish.
That's not an "attack" or an "insult", it's a fact.
And it's, if anything, even more pathetic and childish to petulantly downvote a poster (perhaps across different posts) because they point out that fact.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11645505
> I honestly can't tell if this is meant to be serious or not.
Comments like that will usually get you downvotes.
> For the baby language, maybe, but downvoting something you don't personally like is pathetic and childish.
"People will downvote for disagreement" is a long established convention on HN. You might disagree with (I do too), but pointing it out by calling people childish is going to get downvoted. Your choice is to keep complaining using the same language (but stop complaining about being downvoted if you do so), or to use different language to complain about downvoting.
Here's PG suggesting that downvote to disagree is a problem https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1057347
Here' PG suggesting that downvote to disagree isn't a problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658683
See also this thread where most people are talking about a misuse of upvoting (to upvote mean or dumb comments). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2403696
> And it's, if anything, even more pathetic and childish to petulantly downvote a poster (perhaps across different posts) because they point out that fact.
It's also childish to keep whining^W complaining about downvotes using the same language that got you downvotes.
So people downvoted because you personally can't understand the following two laughably easy to understand sentences?
Let's say someone here posts "fuck off"
or "you're an idiot". Please explain how
that can be interpreted as constructive
to a discussion here.
> Comments like that will usually get you downvotes.
Why? Her post made no sense to me. If I can't tell if someone is being serious how am I supposed to find out?
If only I had 500+ karma, I guess I could have just mindlessly downvoted her instead, since according to you if someone can't understand a post, the poster should suffer for it.
> You might disagree with (I do too), but pointing it out by calling people childish is going to get downvoted.
> It's also childish to keep whining^W complaining about downvotes using the same language that got you downvotes.
Yet somehow okay for you to use the same language?
>Users should live or die by their votes on that comment. If you vote up the blub comment, you should personally get the downvotes for it too. Upvotes should expose you to the karmic downside of superficial comments.
What? Absolutely not.
I confess to having edited a typo once or twice but that's it.
I believe I have seen comments edited (but I don't keep records).
The bottom line is that HN claims I said something I did not and there is no way for anyone to know which text I said and which text you (or another user with editing abilities) said.
In a matter of public opinion about whether or not this would interest children in science - the votes are showing more people think it would than wouldn't.
I also have a feeling more downvotes are coming for trying to pass off their (minority) opinion as some sort of established fact that one could reason themselves into, when most people who have reasoned with themselves came to the opposite conclusion.
If you take that to the logical conclusion: they're insulting other people's intelligence for reaching the opposite conclusion. Which, last I checked, is not proper discourse on HN and routinely gets downvoted along with any other name calling.
It's not proper discourse on HN, or it insults people's intelligence, to have a minority opinion? What?
Everything will be at some point. That's not an argument.
Along with the ship itself.
Adult coloring books range from valuable therapeutic outlets to merely pleasant creative expression, and comparing it to the literal downfall of society due to lack of intelligence is a stretch at best.