• Acemod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    196
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    I hate when they se terms like “cannot be explained” in the headline, and then proceed to explain it in the article.

    How lazy are journalists and editors these days?

    • scutiger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Except the article says the same thing that the title does. They explain that it does work but that they don’t know why because by all expectations it shouldn’t.

      A material that should make the alloy less resistant to corrosion actually makes it more so, and they can’t explain why.

    • call_me_xale@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      106
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I’m right there with you when that kind of clickbaiting crops up, but this article actually isn’t doing that; they’re directly quoting the researchers:

      [Manganese]-based passivation is a counter-intuitive discovery, which cannot be explained by current knowledge in corrosion science.

      This seems like a genuinely novel discovery.

    • iamthetot@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      If something in a headline is in quotes, it should be a direct quote. In this case, they are following that standard. It’s a direct quote of Dr. Kaiping Yu who worked on the research.

      It also happens to make for a very catchy headline.

    • Sabin10@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s all clickbait, people see a headline like that and read the article because it sounds like someone is making magic metal.