I think the name chosen is a good one and like David Attenborough himself, the boat's name will endure for a long time.
However, what did the organisation (NERC) expect when they gave a free choice for the names of the boat. They would have been far better having a poll of say 5 names which had been pre-selected.
Indeed. TBH they were incredibly lucky to land an inoffensive name that sounded fun, and should have made the best of it. Alas, British upper class is not exactly the most dynamic bunch...
But why couldn't the main vessel itself have carried the name?
Here's one reason: imagine the ship were to get into trouble at some point in the future.
Imagine the headlines.
Remember, the places it will work are extremely hostile; they are dangerous.
I can sort of see the reasoning there. “4 dead after Boaty McBoatface sinks” would be a difficult headline to take seriously.
If that is a serious concern then any kind of name outside of a serial number could look bad in a headline. "Attenborough caught dumping diesel, killing baby seals".
Another beautiful misdirect from the science correspondents :-) One might reasonably argue that the onus would be on the headline writers there to lend the appropriate gravitas.
On the other hand ... there'd still be more publicity for the research programme. How much coverage was there for the prosaically named Ocean Researcher V when it sank, resulting in death of two researchers?
-For that exact reason, Churchill instructed the SOE (Or, more probably, the armed forces in general, but it has been a while since I came across this anecdote) that whimsy or plain silly codenames for operations were OUT.
He didn't want any widows to receive a letter stating that 'It is with utmost regret we inform you that your husband died heroically for the Empire during the execution of operation PINK UNDIES' or something of the sort.
You'll never be able to please everybody, just look at the WMO and their tropical storm naming methodology. I've actually heard someone complain about a perceived bias in the ethnicity of the names. You wouldn't even be able to use a true random number, because of tetraphobia [0].
I'm surprised that they made no mention of Mister Splashy Pants [0]. Greenpeace went through the exact same thing, but stuck with the funny name - which turned out to be a really good move.
Regarding the good move, from the wikipedia article linked above:
After their initial reluctance Greenpeace embraced the result of the popular vote and used the name at the center of its campaign. The added publicity, at no cost to Greenpeace, gave it enough impact to convince the Japanese government, and the plan to hunt Humpback whales was abandoned in December 2007
I'm not convinced on the choice of name; Sir David Attenborough has already received many honours and appears to have received this nomination because (1) he is famous as a broadcaster and (2) is popular as a person, seemingly being of a mild and pleasant character.
So they cleverly side-stepped the Boaty issue by picking a name to which people can't object without being accused of picking on a "nice" 90-year-old man. I don't think that's a good basis for a naming policy.
I'm sure there are many publicly-anonymous actual research scientists who could have received this honour instead and BIS / NERC could still have thrown the Boaty-as-ROV bone to the voters.
To see your name on a large ship you need to be old. It's the sort of thing for people who are well into retirement, if not recently deceased. Pick someone younger and you may look foolish should they become involved in something later. Given the public nature of the naming, they also want to go with someone popular. So they want an older person, who the public knows, and that has a history of doing something for the environment. Nobody else covers those three areas like Attenborough.
The dead aren't as popular. Most famous people die 10-20 years after the public stopped watching them. So it's hard to find someone dead but still currently famous. Attenborough is that rare breed of famous person who is still active and respected at 89. Kids and grandparents alike know his name. Even Cosby, with all his infamy, is not recognized by teenagers because he stepped off the main stage long ago.
Chevron had a policy of naming ships after living executives - although it quietly renamed the Condoleeza Rice to something less political in 2001.
With respect to Attenborough, the RRS David Attenborough is a very unexciting choice and isn't going to do anything at all to raise the profile of environmental research.
Can't say I'm opposed to Chevron's idea here. I'm sure headlines like "Chevron CEO hits reef, spilling millions of crude and killing thousands of seals" might make them take safety a (tiny) bit more seriously. Nothing good happens with oil tankers etc.
That does sound like something an oil company would do. It seems like horrible internal pr. Employees, the people who work on the ship, might not appreciate it being named after the boss. I'd have gone with the names of lifelong or heroic employees.
They tried doing the same thing here with a replacement bridge. They didn't like the old name for historical/political reasons and tried to change it to a national hero name to make this clusterfuck of a project more inticing. The backlash was infinite and they backed down. Oh and they didn't get reelected for other various reasons.
They didn't know the poll would leak out to the general public. Also they didn't say the winner necessarily will be chosen, they chose 4th place, and the name they thought was the most fitting, which is completely reasonable.
From the linked Wikipedia article: "For reasons of naval tradition, submarines are usually referred to as 'boats' rather than 'ships', regardless of their size and shape."
During WWII there was somewhat surprizigly unified ship classification and there was hardly any civillian submarines at the time. It was based on tonnage, speed and main gun calibre. Anything smaller than 1000 tons was a boat. Interwar German submarines we're around 500 - 1000 tons, so they we're called "u-boot".
Since WWII names stuck by role of ship. Now we have all kinds of propaganda pieces floating around and ship classification names don't mean anything anymore. A "frigate" might be anything except oil tanker or CATOBAR carrier.
If you would use WWII classification by top speed and tonnage and apply it to modern vessels, Ohio class submarine would be "Submarine Heavy Cruiser" and Typhoon would be "Submarine Battleship".
The navel definition breaks down when you consider heavy lift ships which do carry ships. Here is the MV Blue Marlin (heavy lift ship) carrying USS Cole (a guided-missile destroyer after it was attacked):
As others have pointed out, it is a boat in the nautical terms. But the initial ship was not. I had hoped they would have used that argument to dismiss the name "it's not a boat but a ship". (Ships can carry boats, arguably any ship is also a boat but don't tell a captain of a ship that).
Ha, this is exactly my thought as well. Such a missed opportunity for both vessels. Oh well. Someone more enterprising than them will use a unique name like this and generate more funding / interest in them.
That's because they needed to deflect all the scientists involved calling the main vessel by it's internet name. This way when they joke calling it by the rejected name people don't know if it is Boaty McBoatface. Scientists are quirky and this is no way they will give it up.
They should have just gone with it, and said the people have spoken. It would have been good for morale, because everyone would have a smile on their face every time they said the name in a British accent.
I disagree. I think it's fine to disregard juvenile name suggestions, and the supposed disappointment in the Internet will be forgotten in a couple of days.
"Juvenile", oh please. There's miles of difference between juvenile and irreverent. Keep in mind that a multi-million dollar reusable rocket stage just landed on a ship named "Of Course I Still Love You". "Boaty McBoatface" isn't such a bad name, but the rejection of the name is indicative of a very substantial cultural divide.
It was a fun suggestion but going with it would have reminded me of the world exemplified by the movie Idiocracy. We are heading in that direction with the likes of adult colouring books, but I think it's a good sign that there is still some form of resistance.
Just my observation that adults are regressing into child like behaviour as each generation takes over. Less people taking responsibility for themselves, more people hiding from the world through escapism and a general irreverence for history and tradition. I might be wrong but it keeps bubbling up.
You're not alone; I definitely see this pattern and it's quite frightening. It's not just juvenile, which has existed for a while, it's infantile. And that's new and it's worrisome.
What would you like to happen? That people stop doing things they feel enjoyable in order to achieve a requisite level of gravitas that would satisfy your aesthetic sense about how society should present itself?
No matter how dumb of a name it's given, it will be responsible for cutting edge research. Trying to keep some levity is not at all incompatible with accomplishing real serious science. Bill Nye's the Science Guy (the show) is practically a slapstick variety show, but it's also responsible for making science accessible to countless children.
Adult coloring books range from valuable therapeutic outlets to merely pleasant creative expression, and comparing it to the literal downfall of society due to lack of intelligence is a stretch at best.
Black swan. I dislike him. He's a staunch proponent of population control and patron of Population Matters a group which amongst other things campaigns for net zero immigration. His undeniably impressive professional oeuvre has a carbon footprint like a charcoal yeti making some of his environmental preachiness quite hypocritical. I still like his programs, though.
Curious, I can understand not liking him for supporting/speaking at an organization you dislike, but what's wrong with the idea of population control?
So many of our problems could be fixed by limiting the population of the human race. To be clear, I'm not proposing a solution for doing so nor am I saying the ends would justify the means for how this is reached. However can you not agree that climate change, pollution, resource shortages, etc are caused by having too many people on this planet? This is especially true if people in first-world countries want to continue their lives of excess.
The only reason to keep growing in population is to add fuel to the economic fire, so to speak. This is not a sustainable trend though.
If an organization decides to use a social media contest like this to promote themselves, they should have a social responsibility to adhere to the demands of the people.
But then again, why not have both? I think a drone called Boaty McBoatface could get into all kinds of crazy trouble, only to be bailed out by the wise old mothership, Sir David Attenborough.
Could actually work out really well. I may just have to start working on my new kids book series "Curious Boaty, the cheeky little ROS (Remotely Operated Submarine)" - with related merchandise, a toy ROS with HD video and sampling claw that can be operated from your Android or iOS phone/tablet
There are so many research vessels. Can't one at least be fun, playful and a little bit ridiculous. People are desperately trying to tell institutions (not just in this situation but also in politics) that being honest and more connected with the ordinary person on the street is a virtue.
Well, I think they're an example of an exocentric compound. Neither the "boat" nor the "face" is insulting, but there's an implication of ugliness.
("boatface" implies "boat-faced scoundrel" or equivalent).
Imagine this A/B test - two classrooms of 6 year old kids. Ask one if they want to hear about the amazing research being done onboard the ship named after Attenborough. In the other ask if they want to hear about the adventures of Boaty McBoatface. Boaty would win every time.
From what I heard, they tried to change it a while ago and were met with severe backlash. Banana Slugs is so much more interesting and disarming than some typical predatory animal. Nobody will ever forget UCSC's mascot.
Good luck selling plushies, apparel, comics or animated cartoons of lil' fun Sir David Attenborough! Now instead of having the dream name for science outreach and awareness for kids, you have a stark, cynical lesson on democracy.
Everytime they visited a port could have been, "Hey, Boaty McBoatface is coming to port this Saturday! Why don't you bring your kids to a fun science tour?".
This is probably the first time that an open Internet poll has finally chosen a name that is fun and kid-friendly instead of "Hitler did nothing wrong" and they have decided to waste all the PR potential.
I'll upvote because it's a fair point but I think it could use more nuance. Here's an example:
"The scientists on this ship have a sense of humour and are fun people" meaning that while they take the science seriously, the are approachable and not too worried about what you call their ship.
Also, Sir David Attenborough is a national treasure and while I would have preferred the funny name, this is a very solid alternative.
People who say the name will get kids into science. It really won't, it will have the opposite effect. And this is obvious, so it's disingenuous to claim that was their reason for voting for it.
I'm not sure I know anyone who voted for it in order to make children interested in it. They voted because they thought it was amusing.
However, my children, many of their friends and some of their teachers are now aware that the UK is commissioning a polar research vessel. They definitely weren't before.
I know of at least one junior school science teacher who has used this to seed a lesson. It's a point of interest, it's the start of a conversation. It gives science a different angle and a bit of colour. This is a good thing even if it was by accident. Sometimes we should just take the hand we were dealt and play it.
A slightly peevish note to future viewers: the drone in question is owned by the RRS Sir Ernesto Shackleton. I was kinda hoping for a clandestine in-port surveillance, but no, the views are of the the vessel as it works in Antarctica.
Teenagers love when the people of the internet goes viral and manages to collectively upset/ridicule The Man.
Conversely, they really really hate when government bureaucrats show them that democracy can be a farce and people's choices are worthless.
Teenagers are on a complicated phase of life where adults ask them their opinions as if they were adults too, but then when they don't like the answers, use their power to override them. Which is exactly what transpires of this whole process.
This is totally true. I still have strong memories of being passionate about being social activism, etc and then getting frustrated at being blocked over and over again (by school, govt bodies, etc).
Tnis was not "the people", it was bored wind-up merchants on Reddit and Twitter. The lesson that those people should be ignored can only be a good thing.
> Tnis was not "the people", it was bored wind-up merchants on Reddit and Twitter. The lesson that those people should be ignored can only be a good thing.
Yes, let's ignore the people who bother to vote because they are not the right sort of people. Instead, we'll do what our idea of a 'rational' voter would want /s
Then why do an internet poll at all? Nobody would be complaining if NERC had just decided on the name by themselves. By launching the poll and then reneging on it, they just look foolish for failing to predict an obvious outcome, and somewhat petty for not owning up to it.
And as I pointed out in an earlier thread, it's not like the Royal Navy ships never had playful names; some past examples include the HMS Speedy, HMS Child's Play, HMS Happy Entrance and HMS Arrogant (later renamed HMS Insolent).
Could kind of equate it to elections. It's essentially a huge nationwide poll. If the people they wanted to vote's choice wasn't good enough for them to name the boat Boaty McBoatface, then who's to stop the US government from thinking "ya, know what? We want Trump anyway." and throw the votes out?
Far fetched I agree, but that's the message being sent.
That being said, I'm happy with their choice. Sir David is a great thing to name something after.
I lost a boatload of karma last time this showed up by daring to suggest it was ridiculous to give a $300 million scientific research vessel a deliberately stupid name that even the guy - who is not a teenager, like most of the people here droning on about what teenagers want - who came up with it for a laugh doesn't think should be used.
All you're going to do talking sense here is lose karma from self-styled non-serious people who actually seem to take this issue very seriously indeed.
Edit: And as if right on cue, the cry-babies abuse their 500+ karma again... Hahaha.
> Everytime they visited a port could have been, "Hey, Boaty McBoatface is coming to port this Saturday! Why don't you bring your kids to a fun science tour?".
Since the research vessels advanced submersible ROV is being named "Boaty McBoatface", they still essentially can, though to be as accurate it would have to be "Hey, Boaty McBoatface is coming to port this Saturday onboard the Sir David Attenborough! Why don't you bring your kids to a fun science tour?".
Or if not that name, then some other irreverent choice. RSS I Like Big Boats & I Cannot Lie was my personal favourite. RSS It's Bloody Cold Here was good too.
Kids are great, but they also want to appeal to young people who aren't still five. Silly names aren't a great marketing tool for pulling in recent college graduates or dedicated sailors.
What's in a name? That which we call a boat etc etc. "Silly" isn't necessarily a bad thing, although the term does seem to be used pejoratively.
As for recent college graduates, they might well take a look at the swift mending hands of bureaucracy in this situation, and draw some pretty accurate conclusions about the stiff deeply unsilly hierarchy under which they'd be working.
I would say that the fact that this is now the top story on HN, a place notoriously not populated by 5-year-olds, offers anecdotal evidence on the contrary.
In a more serious response, as a young researcher, let me assure you that when a position opens on a superb research facility such as this, we would fight for it even if it was called the RSS Hitler Did Nothing Wrong. The PR main target here is not researchers/employees, it is the public and specially kids.
Indeed, the name would have been a hearty reassurance that the employer is not entirely lost up its own ass all the time.
I have always been a great fan of Dada, Surrealism, and Discordianism. So I am somewhat disappointed that it seems so dreadfully important to unwaveringly maintain the illusion that science is Serious Business. There is a time and place for both whimsy and gravitas in all aspects of life.
> After their initial reluctance Greenpeace embraced the result of the popular vote and used the name at the center of its campaign. The added publicity, at no cost to Greenpeace, gave it enough impact to convince the Japanese government, and the plan to hunt Humpback whales was abandoned in December 2007.
> In Campaign Magazine, advertising guru Russell Davies praised Greenpeace's handling of the campaign as "one of the defining moments in New Media marketing." The name has since spawned clothing, logos, flashvideos, and the slogan "Save Mister Splashy Pants."
Pop culture can and does change cultural norms and expectations. A famous example is All in the Family changing the conversation around race relations by showing a representative of the "old guard" having his mind slowly changed on the show. It was one factor that made relating to people from other races seem more "normal" than it had before.
My daughter is 7 -- her hero is David Attenborough. She has in her bedroom a frame with the letter she received from him. He's been her hero since she was 4.
I just thought they were making fun of David Attenborough. I don't think it's very nice to say someone has a boat face.
Incidentally, I think that the boat isn't long enough to have his full name with honorifics painted on the side. It is David Frederick Attenborough OM CH CVO CBE FRS FLS FZS FSA.
The fast feedback loops of online participation have always been the best measure to correct romantic views on the relation of democracy and governance. It seems like every online generation needs to learn the lesson that established systems of decisionmaking are there for a reason. That way they always transition from "everybody can come in, everybody can participate, everything is transparent, we're completely free in all decisions, let's create a new world" to "ok yeah we live in an existing world with rules and social order and we need to somehow reflect that in digital form just as well. sorry!".
Why are you equating what was really a suggestion box to democracy? Isn't it really more of a tale of the UK Science Minister being better at saving public face rather than following empirical evidence?
Another way of looking at the situation is - the UK Science Minister is hired to fill a spot, and make science seem, "serious," and have "authority," so that the general public feels that their tax dollars are going to something worthwhile. That would actually mean that in a sense, democracy is prevailing, because the majority of society would rather abstract away the details of science, they just see it as some authority which brings, "good things." I'm not talking about people on the internet who vote on social media, I'm talking about everyone--including that grandma in Scotland who is not on the internet at all.
For those who are strictly practicing empirical data collection, who dare I say, are better pure scientists within the online data collection domain, they may say, "this result had the most votes, so therefore this is the name which wins." But if you're the UK Science Minister, you likely are afraid of losing your job, and afraid of a blowback, knowing that a lot of people will reject that name and have never heard of this voting system. He/she likely is aware of the plushy toy opportunity, but has evaluated that and it pales in comparison to how much money the British Government could continue to get from taxpayers. In effect what you are saying is that you could do a better job than him in evaluating where money comes from for these types of endeavors.
According to your logic we should all feel cynical and contemptuous that Mountain Dew is not now named, "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong."
Why does science need to seem serious? The Mythbusters tremendously advanced the cause of science, and they did it in no small part by not taking themselves too seriously.
>Mythbusters tremendously advanced the cause of science, and they did it in no small part by not taking themselves too seriously.
Personally I think that's a bit of a stretch, but I'm not trying to say the show isn't great. While scientists could learn from their format (providing videos of their experiments, for instance) I wouldn't say that the mythbusters have advanced the cause of science at all. Would you say that the TV show Bill Nye the science guy advanced the cause of science? Science education he has definitely advanced the cause of, but science: not from the TV show. Similarly, I think the mythbusters have advanced engineering education tremendously, specifically television engineering education.
If you think they have actually advanced the cause of science, I would love to hear why. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just speaking from having watched a few episodes, so I definitely could be wrong.
I have very mixed feelings about Bill Nye. I've never watched his show. The only time I've ever seen him in action is during his debate with Ken Ham, and that performance made me cringe. (If you want to know why, see the footnote in http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/this-is-why-prominent-ath...) More generally, I think he promotes a negative stereotype of scientists by choosing to wear a bow tie.
The Mythbusters actually did real science, and they did it with style and panache and grace. They started with a problem, advanced a hypothesis, designed an experiment (often a series of experiments) analyzed the results, drew conclusions, and often went back and re-did things when a viewer pointed out something they did wrong. That is science. They democratized science in a way that no one else has ever done. A kid watching Mythbusters could come away thinking that science was something that they could do themselves. Ultimately, the Mythbusters advanced science by busting the myth that science can only be done by scientists.
Debunking conspiracies is not science, although surely it uses similar methods. Few scientists question whether we landed on the moon. Being a scientist relies on the ability to see true from false accurately -- Einstein and other great scientists questioned scientific phenomena and developed hypothesis to explain them. Whether some people believe we landed on the moon is a social phenomenon, and lies entirely outside the realm of science.
Also, before you start hating on Bill Nye so hard, please compare his reported scientific contributions[1] to Jamie Hyneman's and Adam Savage's (spoiler, theirs don't seem to exist). Last point about Nye: bow ties are ok. Seriously though, people don't hate on Feynman for having long hair or being a supposed sex swinger. I know Nye doesn't have the same prestige, but it's just a bow tie; I think you should give him a break.
Of course bow ties are OK. Nonetheless, a scientist wearing a bow tie reinforces negative stereotypes. It's sad, but true.
> people don't hate on Feynman for having long hair or being a supposed sex swinger
That's because Feynman didn't do those things on TV. If Bill Nye wants to wear a tutu in his private life, more power to him. But if he wears one on a TV show about science I think that would indicate some really poor judgement on his part.
> Bill Nye also engineered a part that was used in the 747 while he worked at Boeing
So? What does that have to do with the Mythbusters?
I'm not seeing how his wearing a tie reinforces any negative stereotypes. If anything it just shows he's "an example of the stereotypical perception of a bow tie wearer" (a professor/teacher wearing a bow tie) which is... uh.. harmless? I see nothing else but some out-of-context quote form a short term Times writer.
Unless you're going to argue people should never do anything that is "stereotypical" of "that kind of person" I see no reason he shouldn't wear a bow tie.
So let me put this in perspective by saying that Bill Nye's bow tie is a minor detail compared to the bigger problem, which is that his pedantry is atrocious. And reasonable people can certainly disagree about fashion. So what follows is just my personal opinion of what is (or at least should be) ultimately an unimportant matter.
The relevant quotes from the wikipedia article are:
"the bow tie is ... an instant sign of nerddom ... not the mark of a ladies' man ... not sexy. Most men ... only wear bow ties with formal dress."
The last sentence is significant. Wearing a bow tie in an informal setting broadcasts an unawareness of (or an uncaring for) social norms (specifically, the social norm that bow ties are formal wear). Hence, it reinforces the negative stereotype of the scientist as someone whose social status is outside the mainstream, an "other", a position to be avoided rather than aspired to.
> Wearing a bow tie in an informal setting broadcasts an unawareness of (or an uncaring for) social norms (specifically, the social norm that bow ties are formal wear).
Its actually not that at all. While "most men ... only wear bow ties with formal dress" is true, that is not because bow ties in general are formal dress. The specific forms of bow ties which are formal dress are not what the small minority of men who wear bow ties in other contexts generally wear. They wear forms that are understood (or were, when they were in fashion) as informal dress, which are quite distinct. They just aren't currently popular fashion.
> The specific forms of bow ties which are formal dress are not what the small minority of men who wear bow ties in other contexts generally wear.
Well yeah, sure, but that doesn't help the situation at all. Clowns, for example, wear bow ties informally, but that's not exactly the kind of image I would like scientists to associate themselves with either. Yes, there was a time when bow ties were fashionable as non-formal wear among non-clowns, but as you yourself point out, those days are long gone.
>Wearing a bow tie in an informal setting broadcasts an unawareness of (or an uncaring for) social norms
Which to me is a good thing. The sooner "social norms" die out, the better. They're the source of many issues - and especially the source of the form of identity politics that exist today. The refusal to accept people who are "outside the social norm" and instead ostracize them for failing to "fit in" is the problem, in more ways than one, from my point of view.
>Hence, it reinforces the negative stereotype of the scientist as someone whose social status is outside the mainstream, an "other", a position to be avoided rather than aspired to.
Another way of saying this: It sends a positive message that you can be whatever you want to be, no matter how "weird" or "different" you are from society. That you can be yourself instead of what others wish to see you as. Even if you have a quirky or dated fashion sense.
I'll agree with you on the pedantry. I feel there is a time and place to be a pedant - and most of that is when it is mission critical or in academic work. It gets in the way of communication more times than it helps.
You surely don't mean that. What you probably mean is something more like, "The sooner social norms that I don't like die out, the better." Humans are social animals, and hence social norms are an indispensable part of the human condition.
I totally agree that the world would be a better place if people didn't have to worry so much about what they wore. But you have to pick your battles, and I think there are bigger fish to fry.
>> Debunking conspiracies is not science
>Why not?
In the general sense of the word, it does qualify. However, my personal definition of doing science requires devotion toward advancement in a specific scientific field. I don't think that definition is actually uncommon. Specifically, few scientists (physicists, chemists, astronomers, biologists, etc...) will ever reference the work of the Mythbusters in their studies or attempts at explaining the universe or aspects of it. Bill Nye would be more likely to be referenced (at least by an aeronautical engineer), in my opinion, but like I said I don't imagine that's either's main focus; that is education. Mythbusters is specifically devoted to applying the scientific method to debunking myths, and that's awesome, but since they're not devoted to advancing a scientific field, I don't see what they do as science. As a far fetched analogy: if I apply the scientific method to blogging, it doesn't mean I'm doing science.
IMHO it is important to distinguish between doing science and being a professional scientist for the same reason it's important to distinguish between (say) playing a sport or a musical instrument and being a professional athlete or musician. Sports and music are democratized in ways that science is not. It is taken for granted that people can play sports or musical instruments without being professionals, but for some reason this is not the case in science. The profession of science oozes with disdain bordering on contempt for those who are not members of the club. This is a very serious problem in our society. It's the reason that climate-change denialists and young-earth creationists get as much traction as they do.
The Mythbusters were not professional scientists (they were professional entertainers), but they absolutely did science. And they did good science. Your dismissal of them is IMHO a symptom of the problem that they more than anyone else took a step toward solving.
It doesn't need to seem serious...the Science Minister is following more of a risk mitigation strategy - e.g. the vast population of the public will most likely feel OK about the, "Attenbourough," name, whereas a small fringe will leverage, "Boaty McBoatface," to attack the cause of science and say that it's a waste of money. The small fringe's attack has a risk of loss, whereas the larger science fanbase has no risk of loss, only a risk of not as much gain.
He would have received public criticism either way. However, he's going for the safer strategy, which is to mitigate attack rather than expand upon opportunity. Think about politicians like Sarah Palin who attack scientists for studying fruit flies, and then her tons of followers agreeing with her and lobbying to cut science funding because it, "sounds bad." The same effect could occur in the UK, although on a lesser scale.
I think you are seriously underestimating the demand for Sir David Attenborough plushies. The dude is up there with Neil Degrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan with the I Fucking Love Science crowd pantheon of science fandom.
Most British people have never heard of those two but Attenborough is about as recognisable as the Queen and with far more positive associations. He has been on the telly since the 1950s and his broadcasting is part of the shared culture, like the footage of him hanging out with gorillas...Less of a thing nowadays of course, but if you are British and old enough to remember when there were only a couple of TV channels, Attenborough is the Don.
Sir Attenborough is a wonderful choice, and I'm quite happy they named a research vessel after him. But Boaty McBoatface was a wonderful choice, too, and I'm very disappointed it was overruled by the fuddy-duddy bureaucrats.
Although I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to take the conventions surrounding the last vestiges of the feudal system too seriously, it's either "Sir David" or "Sir David Attenborough".
It's almost as if representative democracy of this kind is a complete sham. It's a good job this kind of ridiculous situation doesn't crop up here on HN from our YC overlords !
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the initial description of the initiative explicitly say that they wouldn't simply be using votes and would still use their own discretion to make the final judgements?
What are you talking about? Neither is a representative democracy. They don't have to do anything.
Both simply appealed to the public as an experiment and learned that a large swath of the public feels it has no power and finds it empowering, now that they finally have their hands on the steering wheel, to flip the car rather than drive it. Children who haven't been given much autonomy will often have the same mentality: when finally given power they will be destructive because it's a better test of the reality of the new-found power.
Ok, so maybe "representative democracy" (in a strict political sense) was bad terminology to use, but my point is that both experiments set themselves up with a veneer of democracy only for that to come crumbling down when they didn't like the answers they got.
In a surprise move, Sir David Attenborough legally changes his name to Boaty McBoatface in support of the Internet hordes. Facing waning popularity, this maneuver is seen as a means of returning to the cult-icon status days he experienced as a broadcaster. When asked for comment, Sir McBoatface stated "I'm a few days short of my ninetieth birthday and let's face it - once I'm gone nobody's going to remember a name like Attenborough. As Boaty McBoatface, my name will actually be remembered. Would you like fries with that?"
If they wanted to name the boat after someone like Attenborough that's great but why open the vote to the public and then ignore the most popular choice?
When will they learn that holding an online poll to name stuff is never, ever a good idea. They should count themselves lucky the winning entry was work-safe.
Although I still feel that if you're going to go through with it you should stick with the results. Silly people.
I think people are underestimating the popularity of David Attenborough - to many people in the UK he is the face, and especially voice, of TV naturalism, and has been for decades.
Being named Boaty McBoatface would have been such a great icebreaker for starting outreach discussions. A ship like this one needs a great icebreaker sometimes.
They can name it whatever they want, that ship has been recorded as "Boaty McBoatface" to my memory.
Also really kudos to them, Boaty McBoatface made everyone smile when they heard the name and got them interested; Sir David Attenborough however... doesn't make that effect.
> he's being downvoted both because HN users disagree
Which is probably the usual reason people downvote. And it's a shit reason.
Downvoting (ie, trying to bury or hide a post) because someone says sumfing u don't wike is pathetic and childish; if you disagree either argue against it or move on.
Downvotes (if they have to exist) should be reserved for posts that are objectively non-constructive (as in posts that don't make any argument, whether you agree with it or not, or add anything to a discussion).
People will downvote and claim constructive comments are non-constructuve.
People will even get the moderator to remove your comments and the moderator may make claims that your comments are "off-topic" if too many downmodders attach to your comment.
The moderator will even alter text you post without notice. HN is not a serious discussion forum, but a marketing exercise for a VC fund.
I just checked the first page of your comments and there seems to be some strange examples of inane/non-constructive downvoting.
(I've seen threads where some of the wackiest, most inexplicable downvoting is going on, I almost wonder if it's the site deliberately trying to stir up activity/controversy.)
In this thread it's becoming quite pathetic and ridiculous that people are unable to explain or back up the point they have made when I ask, and yet I get downvoted. On every post. This one will be no exception. (Edit: and it wasn't.)
I assumed this was a serious place, and liked the idea of rules to keep a civil and theoretically high quality discussion, but the abuse of downvoting by infantile people just destroys it.
Same thing happened to Reddit. It was kind of inevitable that it would happen here, where many HN users are likely also Reddit users. Disagree button makes no sense when we already have a flag button.
I agree; I hate the concept of downvoting. It's purely negative, which this site claims to discourage, it's completely mindless - why bother forming a cogent rebuttal to something you disagree with when you can lazily (and cowardly, without any risk of having your fragile beliefs challenged back) click a down arrow instead - and it disfavours minority (potentially interesting or controversial) points of view.
You might be interested in Voat.co. That is the basic mindset of its comparitively small user base. Downvoting is typically reserved for the truly shit posts. There is a lot of crude content, but the site makes it easy to filter that out if you so choose.
Thanks. I had vaguely heard of Voat before, but for some reason thought it was a script for self-hosted Reddit style sites.
dang, I assume you meant stop bickering, but if you absolutely mean no more posts, sorry for this. It will probably be the last anyway.
I'm just curious, since you (ferrari) and anyone else still reading this have more knowledge or experience about this, has any site, or even HN, ever tried making the usernames people who upvote and downvote publicly visible?
I think people would put more thought into what they up or (especially) downvote if they could not 'hide', and their usernames were attached to it. Likewise, if voting had a 'cost', say, 1 karma to upvote and 1 or 2 karma to downvote.
HN does not publicly publish a downmod feed. I have asked multiple times to be linked to it, but I am always refused.
A top poster with privilege, tptacek, claimed on a detached (by dang) thread that seeing who downmods me is "really none of [my] business"[0]. I would guess the same applies to you.
You're probably getting downvoted because this subthread is painfully off-topic and breaks the HN guidelines, which contain not one but two rules asking people not to go on about downvotes. They're at the bottom, where they belong: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Every post I made has been downvoted, and the edits that mention downvoting obviously came after I was downvoted. Some downvoted posts don't mention downvoting at all.
Two are downvoted for asking someone to clarify their argument and for rebutting someone else's incorrect point. Or they're downvoted because some people simply downvoted every post I made, because I made it.
I'm mostly being downvoted by people who downvote opinions they don't agree with, or people they don't like, just as other people are in this thread, and which happens in other threads all the time.
How is using what is literally a negative arrow on posts or posters you don't like/agree with anything but gratuitous negativity?
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument
How is lazily pressing a down arrow replying to the argument?
> it makes boring reading.
It makes boring reading to see posts all over the place whited out (yet no actual written refutation of the post content) because some people can't tolerate or be bothered to discuss or argue with things they disagree with.
If HN is against negativity, then maybe it should not have a button that expresses pure negativity.
And if something is being complained about so often there have to be two rules against it, maybe it's time to get rid of the (non-constructive) thing so many people are complaining about.
If people want to reward discussions or comments, or have them rise to the top, they can achieve such by pressing the up button (which AFAIK is how it works on the submissions - no downvote).
The only reason a downvote is necessary is to provide childish, fragile people a way to 'hide' or 'punish' opinions or people they don't like but are too incapable/lazy to refute.
Since I doubt I'm the first person to make these points, and suspect nothing will change after this post, I guess it's deliberate HN policy to pander to such people.
It should also be fucking obvious that downvotes are not being made for something as yet unknown that I do in the future and only in response to the downvoting (ie: criticising it as childish).
And downvoting someone because they call specific downvoting childish? That seems like the epitome of childishness to me, and simply validates my point.
> Downvoting (ie, trying to bury or hide a post) because someone says sumfing u don't wike is pathetic and childish; if you disagree either argue against it or move on.
The rest of your comments increase the attack.
You are getting downvotes because your posts go on a meta tangent, and use insults. Stuff like this...
Where's my so-called "attack" or "insult" in this entirely reasonable post then (aside from the edit, which was obviously made after I was downvoted), with a lower score than the one you cited?
For the baby language, maybe, but downvoting something you don't personally like is pathetic and childish.
That's not an "attack" or an "insult", it's a fact.
And it's, if anything, even more pathetic and childish to petulantly downvote a poster (perhaps across different posts) because they point out that fact.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11645104 was downvoted for being an incoherent non-addition to the discussion. I've re-read it several times and I have no idea why you thought it was relevant or what point you were trying to make.
> I honestly can't tell if this is meant to be serious or not.
Comments like that will usually get you downvotes.
> For the baby language, maybe, but downvoting something you don't personally like is pathetic and childish.
"People will downvote for disagreement" is a long established convention on HN. You might disagree with (I do too), but pointing it out by calling people childish is going to get downvoted. Your choice is to keep complaining using the same language (but stop complaining about being downvoted if you do so), or to use different language to complain about downvoting.
> And it's, if anything, even more pathetic and childish to petulantly downvote a poster (perhaps across different posts) because they point out that fact.
It's also childish to keep whining^W complaining about downvotes using the same language that got you downvotes.
> I've re-read it several times and I have no idea why you thought it was relevant or what point you were trying to make.
So people downvoted because you personally can't understand the following two laughably easy to understand sentences?
Let's say someone here posts "fuck off"
or "you're an idiot". Please explain how
that can be interpreted as constructive
to a discussion here.
Made - completely relevantly - in response to someone claiming "non-constructive" is always subjective.
> Comments like that will usually get you downvotes.
Why? Her post made no sense to me. If I can't tell if someone is being serious how am I supposed to find out?
If only I had 500+ karma, I guess I could have just mindlessly downvoted her instead, since according to you if someone can't understand a post, the poster should suffer for it.
> You might disagree with (I do too), but pointing it out by calling people childish is going to get downvoted.
> It's also childish to keep whining^W complaining about downvotes using the same language that got you downvotes.
Yet somehow okay for you to use the same language?
Thanks for those links. Just the other day dang and tptacek were (absurdly) claiming that karma has no value; yet, here was tptacek on the second comment in your (2403696) link:
>Users should live or die by their votes on that comment. If you vote up the blub comment, you should personally get the downvotes for it too. Upvotes should expose you to the karmic downside of superficial comments.
One problem is the severe rate-limiting. I don't think downmods get rate-limited (I rarely downmod), so someone could downmod (which is not undoable), write up a response and get rate-limited, and never follow through with posting after their limit is up.
Someone/people really proving the points being made about downvoting and the seriousness of this forum. FWIW, I upvoted because I think the downvotes are abusive (particularly the one you object to here). Did not seem to make any difference though.
You don't see a contradiction between, "[we] absolutely [will] not [modify text users post]" and, "we edit story titles all the time"?
The bottom line is that HN claims I said something I did not and there is no way for anyone to know which text I said and which text you (or another user with editing abilities) said.
>Which is probably the usual reason people downvote. And it's a shit reason.
In a matter of public opinion about whether or not this would interest children in science - the votes are showing more people think it would than wouldn't.
I also have a feeling more downvotes are coming for trying to pass off their (minority) opinion as some sort of established fact that one could reason themselves into, when most people who have reasoned with themselves came to the opposite conclusion.
If you take that to the logical conclusion: they're insulting other people's intelligence for reaching the opposite conclusion. Which, last I checked, is not proper discourse on HN and routinely gets downvoted along with any other name calling.
Goofy names are usually fun for about 5 minutes, but quickly become seriously annoying if you have to use them continually. I imagine the same is true for ship names as for naming classes or functions.
Thank God that this boat was named after a television host rather than a whimsy chosen by the public. I guess "seriousness" was a choice between terminally ill children and entertainers. Couldn't find a scientist?
David Attenborough has a degree in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University. No one in England would characterise him as an entertainer - he is well regarded both in front and behind the camera as a science communicator, and was responsible as the head of BBC2 for commissioning a vast range of science television programming.
If nothing else, I must say that reading through this thread, I now understand much better why I've always thought the world can be such a sad place; There are way too many people who apparently have no sense of humor.
#/media/File:Cardinal_and_Raven_on_Blue_Marlin.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:HMAS_Canberra_(LHD_02)_%2B_Blue_Martin.JPG){kind=link}
reply