Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zandikar | Hacker News Reader

> But I can assure you I spoke to many people, and read many papers, in reporting the article

You keep saying that and not citing them. Please do.

I said it once, and waited for them to express interest. Now you have. Here are some of the papers from which the reporting is drawn:

starting point for abyssal biomass calcs - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.6710...

more on abyssal biomass- https://www.nature.com/articles/srep30492

plant biomass per hectare in Sulawesi - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03781...

nickel assessment in nori-d for per hectare numbers https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1798562/000121390021...

I spoke to Kris van Nijen, Gerard Barron, Nathan Eastwood, Adrian Glover, François Mosnier, Pia Heidak, Peter Tom Jones, Mervyn Stevens, Alex Laugharne

Much appreciated. This goes a long way in alleviating concerns about this being a paid piece by TMC and gives some insightful credence into the claims about deep water sea life and potential impacts.

As I've apparently upset someone else in the comments by asking for citations, I just want to clarify that I didn't intend that as an attack. I'm just a bit incredulous that an organization with as much "prestige" and alleged journalistic integrity as The Economist doesn't - as a rule - cite their sources or byline their authors.

Perhaps it's just a different way of doing things, but that really doesn't sit right with me for a number of reasons, and as a result, I have a hard time taking anything it says without a spoonfull of salt/sources.

Thanks again.

No problem, happy to help

It hasn't even been an hour. Chill tf out.

I'm aware. Please point to the part where I specified a 1 hour (or any) deadline. They're free to do whatever the damn well please quite frankly, but as they've made multiple assurances that said sources do exists, I was just explicitly stating that we would like those citations. EDIT: And while typing this, they delivered.

Deadline? You wrote as if they were stalling or an unreasonably long time has passed, when hardly any time had passed at all.

Incorrect. They were waiting for someone to explicitly ask. And I Did. See their comment. You're the one that's reading far too into this and need to chill.

I'm not criticizing you for asking. That phrasing is accusational and expresses annoyance, I'm reading it normally.

The author was clearly making a point to make us ask explicitly even after we expressed concerns about their and their publications sources. Yes, I was annoyed by this. You however grossly misinterpreted as me being upset and demanding sources IMMEDIATELY, which wasn't the case. I made a single request to follow up on what the initial commenter in this thread said to reinforce that there are multiple of us in the comments that are highly skeptical of the claims in the paper, especially in light of a lack of byline or citations by the publisher.

The author then happily obliged in a timely and respectful manner and addressed my concerns. You, however, are the one that took issue with it.

I interpreted it normally. It seems you wrote it wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com