Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | schiffern's commentslogin

"I always have and always will abide by that rule to the best of my knowledge at the time a story is published."

Nothing suspicious about heavy use of qualifiers in a non-apology blanket denial. Where's the Polymarket for whether this guy has a job next month?

https://www.404media.co/ars-technica-pulls-article-with-ai-f...


> whether this guy has a job next month?

That’s a problem. If he really hasn’t apologized, neither he nor Ars have recognized there is a problem, which means it will happen again.


Is there something to the story that I'm missing? Why does Orland need to apologize? Edwards fabricated the quotes via AI and seemingly presented them to Orland as authentic. Orland had no reason to suspect the quotes weren't real until after publishing.

When journalists are working on a shared byline, they don't each do the same research in order to fact-check each other. There is inherently a level of trust required for collaborating like this and Edwards violated that trust.

You can say this is a failure by the editorial process for not including fact checking, but that is an organizational issue with Ars, it's not the fault of Orland for failing to duplicate the work that he believed his coauthor did.


Yeah, consider the same thing in other domains - e.g. say you're doing some code review and the PR author is a cowoker you've had for years, and they include a comment with a link to some canonical documentation along with a verbatim quote from said doc explaining usage of something in the PR. If the quote and usage both make sense in the context, I'm not going to be habitually clicking through to the docs to verify that the quote isn't actually fabricated.

> Why does Orland need to apologize? Edwards fabricated the quotes

He's on the byline and he's an editor.

> they don't each do the same research in order to fact-check each other. There is inherently a level of trust

If we're going to excuse this, what does the byline mean? He trusted the wrong person. It would be like if a source lied to him. Not the end of the world. But absolutely credibility destroying if instead of an apology you get a word salad.

> You can say this is a failure by the editorial process

Orland is also an editor. (Senior gaming editor [1].)

[1] https://arstechnica.com/author/kyle-orland/


Having a byline on a piece is not an indication he edited the piece, in fact, it's an indication he didn't edit it. That byline is simply an indication that he was one of two people responsible for writing the piece. He obviously didn't write every line or else there wouldn't be a second byline.

There is also a huge difference between trusting a coworker and falling for a lie of a source. Journalists deal with sources with a certain level of skepticism that just isn't productive or conducive to being a good coworker. Have you ever dealt with a coworker who didn't trust people to do their jobs? It's incredibly offputting.

I'll also point out that I said blame the "editorial process", that isn't the same as blaming an individual editor. This type of basic fact checking is either funded by the business or it isn't. This is very unlikely to be a failure of an individual rather than an absence of fact-checking at all and the decision for that is very unlikely to be made by the "senior gaming editor" (and it should be noted this wasn't even a gaming story).

There seems to be a disconnect between the way journalism generally works and your expectations for how it works. I believe Orland got duped by behaving the way most journalists would in a system that is less able to catch issues like this due to general industry cutbacks.


Hey now, what's wrong with 'slop?' A farmer loves slop. It's dirt cheap, and the pigs don't seem to mind...

The mayor is making a great argument for not blanketing your city in a surveillance dragnet.

Policymakers were warned about precisely these dangers ahead of time. They went ahead anyway, and now they want to play blameless and are trying to shift the blame on anyone but themselves.


It's in an <iframe>, commonly used for social media stuff:

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/H3XKt/3/


This is the chart I couldn’t see, thanks. And holee shit, quit eating beef. :-)

Chart is buggy for some. Original here, Vox just added the countries up. Notice beef is off-scale high.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-026-01305-4/figures/5


This is ignoring the massive distinction between manned flight (where failure is not an option) and unmanned tests. NASA and SpaceX both know this well.

Calling it a "SpaceX like approach" and connecting to Apollo 1 is a neat trick, but SpaceX wouldn't (and doesn't) adopt that risky approach during manned flights.

It's all about "the right risk for the job." You can't be risky with human safety, but you also don't want to be overly timid and failure-averse during safely managed R&D tests, or your R&D grinds to a halt.


Thanks, quite an engrossing story.

(Trivially I think it [missed] a word: "But he didn’t share his finding. A slow and methodical thinker, he preferred [not] to discuss his results with others until he was sure he was right.")


Also interesting to hear what the NASA people assigned to work with SpaceX say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxIiiwD9C0E&t=1440s


See also: Chinese banking (anti-fraud) numerals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_numerals#Financial_num...


The claimed commonality is "early maximalist optimism turns into mature niche adoption."

Could be different this time around, or could be that the early naive optimism is just more widespread.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: