Editing Talk:1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews

<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->

Why not use Heliologist? :~) [[User:DarkJMKnight|DarkJMKnight]] ([[User talk:DarkJMKnight|talk]]) 14:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If the sun is local breaking news, could be an impending dark age (solar activity destroying all technology) or a dark age (solar implosion/explosion/death). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.5|162.158.79.5]] 15:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

: Destroying *''all''* technology would require something on the scale of a solar expansion (hydrogen exhaustion) Solar flares (even those strong enough to burn all life from the face of the Earth) still would not be sufficient to destroy subterranean shelters like NORAD. Only a total extinction event would be capable of destroying all technology. Even if 99.9% of all humans on Earth were killed off, there are very well secured (& insanely well funded) facilities which will survive any event short of total crust-upheaval, at least for a generation or so. Reverting to primitive lifestyle may possibly happen for a *''majority''* of humans, but modern military systems are such that some humans with tech are almost guaranteed to remain, no matter what terrible events occur. In other words, the wealthiest technocratic elite aren't going to die off any time soon. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.125|172.68.58.125]] 00:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

: Which makes me wonder why only a local reporter is covering the story. Sounds like a media beat-up. The joke appears to depend more on someone's imagination than on the actual news story. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.34|198.41.238.34]] 23:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Everyone else is dead except for the reporter who happens to be beret guy

Marine biologist is probably about oil spills or coral reefs/fish dying etc, rather than invasive species --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.209|141.101.99.209]] 16:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The explanation for "ornithologist" uses "avian dinosaurs" instead of "birds."  There's a link to the wikipedia page for birds, but it's still a potentially confusing inside joke. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.106|172.68.54.106]] 19:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
: The reference to "ornithologist" is almost certainly a reference to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birds_(film) Hitchcock's "The Birds"] [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 01:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
:: Definitely, rather than the obscure Birdemic movie --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.81|141.101.69.81]] 06:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

So, wait: worried about what the hell is so wrong with interviewers for them to actually want to talk to these kinds of researchers; or about what is happening to the world are we all going to die is it the end times? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.71|162.158.79.71]] 19:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
: This seems to be inspired by horror and disaster movies, so talking to a volcanologist would suggest that a volcano is about to blow and make the local town the next Pompeii. An ornithologist means the birds are about to go psycho like in The Birds (if we're going to list obscure things nobody has ever heard of, I'd put forward a certain episode of a show called Cybersix), etc. That's what this is talking about. So, end times. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The solar physicist would most likely be talking about an incoming solar flare, which could shut down the electric grid, satellites, and a bunch of other stuff, potentially within minutes, making it the most pressing of the issues. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.112|162.158.75.112]] 01:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think economists and nutritionists are at the lower end for being notoriously wrong in their predictions --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.81|141.101.69.81]] 06:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, this comic came on the morning right after the night in which I had a terrifying nightmare about the sun going supernova. I'm SERIOUSLY spooked. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.148|162.158.92.148]] 08:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
:Well don't worry, the sun is too small to go Super nova. My nightmare as a kid was that it swelled up and swallowed the Earth... This will probably happen, but in 5 bill. years fro now. But when you are 6 years old that is not a number that makes any sense, and I had just heard about the death of the sun :D --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Bayes! Uuuh-vey! Considering you should pre-multiply with the probability that the
desaster happens in the first place (which is rather unlikely for the sun),
I definitely would be worried with the economist most. (Mkay, big stock crashes are as
probable as volcano eruptions, but I don't live near one.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.29|141.101.104.29]] 10:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
:But economists are interviewed before and after every meeting of the [Federal Reserve / Bank of England / whoever] discussing whether to change interest rates. That's a lot of non-critical interviews. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.76|162.158.34.76]] 10:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
:If this is a joke about disaster movies like I think it is, then the probability of a disaster happening is basically 1, then this scale becomes a question of how scary the disaster is. I, for one, definitely think Jaws is a more scary announcement than anything an economist can come up with. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.112|172.68.54.112]] 15:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is a joke about disaster movies not a serious scale. So Marine Biologist is pretty worrying because it's a shark attack or a giant octopus. Ornithologist is scary because of the birds, astronomers are meteors, etc. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.112|172.68.54.112]] 15:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What about the missing entries?   Mathematician: "the discrete logarithm problem has been solved" (eCommerce becomes insecure).
[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 20:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking- after all the heavy handed AGW talk during the campaign, Climatologist is strangely missing from the list.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 20:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.89|172.68.253.89]] 23:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC) I can think of one speciality worse: nuclear physicist. Like the Sun, but localised. Imagine how local people must have thought when they were informed of the Fukushima Daiichi plant being compromised in 2011.

I would personally put Criminologist up among the top 4 (depending on how much I believe this is who they'd talk to for a serial killer), and everything else from Entomologist on down would be tied with Archeologist, with Nutritionist perhaps lower (nutritionists never agree, people just listen to the ones saying something they like, so I figure they all need to be taken with a grain of salt except when there's a majority opinion). Seems like these are more influenced by disaster / horror / thriller movies, LOL! Like Ornothogists rate high because of The Birds (which is famous and by a famous director, never heard of that other one, how does it rate a mention?) P.S. The first two comments got doubled up, cleaned it up before it got worse. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

People who aren't worried about interviewing the archaeologist clearly need to watch more The Mummy and Indiana Jones movies.  And Alien, for that matter. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.52|198.41.238.52]] 01:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I got a completely different joke when I read this one.  My initial interpretation of the comic was how worried we should all be that the (presumably scientifically illiterate) reporter was going to mangle the science contained in the interview in the interest of sensationalism and selling a news story.  Not that your all's' interpretation isn't perfectly valid, but given Randall's previous send ups of poor scientific reporting, that's the direction my mind went first.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.143.246|172.68.143.246]] 22:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we add this article about the spelling of Archaeologist and Archeologist https://web.archive.org/web/20091205105622/http://www.saa.org/ForthePublic/Resources/OtherUsefulResources/Whyaretheretwodifferentspellingsarchaeology/tabid/1078/Default.aspx
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.211.88|172.68.211.88]] 01:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC) 
I added a funny citation needed to the part about the Sun. It's obvious enough to warrant one in my opinion.--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.221|172.69.62.221]] 19:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

"...regarding the fiery ball that maintains the Earth's orbit and capacity for life." — To be honest, this is overkill. There aren't that many things that can go wrong with the Sun to make the orbit different without affecting the capacity for life. And any number (including suddenly becoming a solar-mass black hole for... reasons(?)) that would definitely mess about with habitability but not actually change the orbit appreciably. Orbital changes are most likely due to other factors entirely, this side of being engulfed by the expaning solar atmosphere (which would be a herald of unhealthy conditions long before that). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121|172.70.90.121]] 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like many of the explanations on the left end of the scale are inaccurate given that this is BREAKING news specifically. With the economist, although it mentions it might be a crash, it would almost certainly be a crash if it's breaking. For a nutritionist, I feel like the joke there has to do with something being dangerous to eat, given that it's breaking (and more worrisome than an economic crash.) For a criminologist, given that its an interview, and not directly *handling* the criminal, this one could certainly be a loose criminal (again, given that it's breaking.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.181|172.71.150.181]] 08:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
:Aside from there always being the possibility of "Breaking News: Somebody just released the results of a long awaited report (and we haven't anything more world-shattering to tell you right now, but we're a 24-hour news channel and we'll broadcast what we get, when we get it...)", I can see how you could also improve the treatment of some. Feel free to try to improve as you see fit.
:Though 'boring' crime statistics ''might'' indeed be of the major newsworthy nature (it's the point at which the government/police/etc are 'proven' officially good (or, probably, bad) at their job by identifying some simplistic number that compares well(/badly) with the number from the last time they released something like this). It's bread and butter for those who report broad-stroke things. Especially if those broad-strokes support their editorial worldview, whatever that might be...
:"Can't you see? Burglaries are up! <sub>Robberies and kidnappings are both are way down, but</sub> '''I blame the government for the increase in crime''', <sub>by which I mean just the robberies, let us skip over those other figures. The lowering of robberies and kidnappings is ''clearly'' due to robbers and kidnappers deciding to do other things, like</sub> '''Burglary!!!''' Beware of burglars! And blame this government <sub>for concentrating on anti-robbery and anti-kidnapping measures, which turns out to be 'useless' because those are the crimes nobody is even committing, they should have actually been attempting to stop</sub> All! These! Burglars!"
:What else would a (tame) criminologist be telling us? Generally "yes, this particular newsworthy crime of a celebratory being forced to sign an autograph, even though they were trying to relax at the beach, seems to indicate a pattern as ..." or "...the trend of being blackmailed for wearing black socks on the golf-course is a fairly new tactic by extortionists, that we had not seen even recorded until just five years ago, but now seems to affect tens of people a year" is more their thing. Whereas going into 'active' analysis such as "we consider the individual who did this to be aged 40-45, a non-denomonational religious background and childhood history of stuttering" or "we believe they escaped by stolen tram to the north of the city, where we are currently concentrating our searches" are more the realm of forensic pathologists/etc (chanelled by the figurehead investigating officer or designated press-relations official), rather than drafting in a person who studies crime trends. (Unless it's off the bat by the news channel, who have their 'pet crime expert' on call and don't care much so long as he says things that they consider news.)
:Just to deconstruct that one item. Doubtless there's multiple interpretations, and (if you think you can make a reasonable case for them) you are free to edit things accordingly. Briefer than this reply, ideally! ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.33|141.101.99.33]] 15:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


tis simpler now :)
--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.69|162.158.74.69]] 14:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:'Twas. But you(?) just snipped many things without clear reasoning. Could probably be edited down (or the cross-compararisons noted in the table), but I've reverted your big-snip.
:I also corrected the anchor to the table (probably, without checking, it was headed as "Table" beforehand, so I updated the link to the currently used anchor-text). It's more discriminate tweaks like this that are needed. I'm sure the pre-table prose can indeed be simplified (or folded into other bits) but not by just deleting it and leaving a smiley comment here. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.121|172.69.194.121]] 15:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)