Clementinesm t1_ix98t8s wrote
This headline had me scared it had been struck again, but I’m glad it was only just about the event that happened when it first opened
PrimarySwan t1_ix9jht3 wrote
Oh good. I hate these articles. They could have also wrote JWST performing above expectstions despite early bad luck with micrometeroids but who clicks on that... well I do but I'm a nerd.
Clementinesm t1_ix9kph5 wrote
Honestly that would’ve been a much better headline. I wish “science journalists” would be more educated and involved in sciences. It annoys me how much they write for clicks.
PrimarySwan t1_ixa6hya wrote
It's all for clicks. Phys.org is a great news site. Obviously geared towards physics news but they have a big astronomy and space exploration section with some great writers that usually have STEM education. And they also cover all the sciences, you have a chemistry section, bio etc... but focus on physics. So a great place to get your JWST and CERNor LIGO news without clickbait. And they do magical stuff like publish corrections for articles if something was wrong.
dr4d1s t1_ixclcdh wrote
Oh it's been struck 14 times now. 13 really small ones and that one bigger one. At the time "the big one" struck JWST, it had only been hit 5 times. And that was as of 2 weeks or so ago. It could be more now.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments