= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kevin comments on Nature editorial: Do scientists really need a PhD? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (18)
I also thought so, but nothing but the descriptive link had already hit a critical mass of downvotes, so it seemed worth it to experiment further to see if I could quickly get a permutation that I got it back up into positive karma.
I suspected that people didn't like the descriptive link (which was the first two sentences of the article), because the writing style of a mainstream media article is rather jolting coming from the style of prose generally practiced on Less Wrong.
I downvoted because I favor the norm that links sans independent content from the linker belong in the Open Thread. If it's important enough, it'll get linked from a relevant future post.