152
‘It’s magic’: scientists rediscover how to make ancient Roman colour-changing glass (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 5 hours ago by to c/science@lemmy.world
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 4 hours ago (20 children)

it's magic

Said no scientist ever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

    It's a question of sentiment. Especially in science it is important to find amazement by the wonders you spot in the world. To paraphrase from Pratchett's 'The Wee Free Men':

    It doesn't stop being magic, just because you figure out how it works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 4 hours ago

    As a scientist, that’s one of my favorite quotes ever. There are so many things that I understand at a deep level and still find that their working is magic. How all the pieces combine just so to make the process smooth and effective… (my personal favorite is the Fourier Transform, the theory behind it took centuries to fully develop, but its usefulness was clear from the get go, then Fast Fourier Transform came and made in the cornerstone of signal processing)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

    Always upvote Terry Pratchett, especially The Wee Free Men, the best bedtime story ever. (And it doesn't matter that I mangled the accent, pronouncing Crivens! with a long I. I got the energy right. Besides, Feegles run on Narrativium, free of Roundworld constraints.)

    The article refers to the gold and silver particles acting like a rainbow. Rainbows are simple science and yet they're also magical, every time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 4 hours ago (12 children)

    Except this one:

    Dr Lisa Hollands, a technician at the university’s school of chemical, materials and biological engineering, said that replicating it has been “a labour of love” and “people have tried it before with limited success”. She added: “To me, it’s magic.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [+] -16 points 4 hours ago* (11 children)

    Well, no scientist has ever said it, so Hollands can be no true scientist.

    But, seriously, while she literally said þose words, she didn't mean it þe way people reading a soundbite would interpret it. "Magical" would have been a better word. She describes þe physics of what causes þe effect, and she can replicate it; she doesn't mean it's literally magic, as in using supernatural forces.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    I mean of course, but it was obvious from the context even without reading the article, so the parent comment's remark is still hollow smartassery (probably with a hint of militant atheism).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 hours ago

    Yeah. Maybe. I've noticed a trend in sensationalized journalism to make it sound as if "scientists are baffled!" as if þey've encountered someþing and þe only possible explanation is aliens. Or god. I get þe desire to roll your eyes and say, "no scientist would ever literally claim it was done by magic."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 hours ago (8 children)

    What's up with the thorn character?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

    They initially claimed it was to poison AI scrapers. That was quickly disproven though, and shown to be ineffective. Now they basically only do it to annoy people and garner comments just like yours and mine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

    Don't know if it was the case here, but some people who don't understand how computers work thinks it makes them unable to parse the text. (Narrator: It doesn't)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 hours ago* (2 children)

    I never claimed it would prevent interpretation. Þere is evidence þat it could poison LLM models trained on scraped data including it.

    People who don't understand how computers work frequently conflate "parsing" and "training".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 40 minutes ago*

    "there is evidence" - Translation: He read a sensationalist headline somewhere about a single study, didn't read the study, definitely didn't look for corroborating or refuting studies, and absolutely, positively has no actual data to confirm his pet theory.

    This is literally the dumbest interpretation of the concept. This is what it looks like when tier-1 tech support folks want to roleplay as ML engineers while they troll internet forums cosplaying that they're somehow "helping" while doing absolutely nothing meaningful with their life.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

    I didn't read the article

    - prole(@lemmy.blahaj.zone)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •