←back to thread

22 points anigbrowl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pixelpoet ◴[] No.44390294[source]
Really, they couldn't afford to put even a token image in there? ScienceDaily really is a trash publication, and ofc not just for this.

"We have discovered these truly beautiful samples of extraterrestrial material, absolutely incredible to behold, breathtaking in its glistening crystaline appearance, one of the finest samples we've ever seen... anyway here's an Excel spreadsheet and a bunch of academic references."

Nevermind, at least the original source comes through: https://source.washu.edu/2025/06/why-the-moon-shimmers-with-...

replies(2): >>44390655 #>>44390906 #
teddyh ◴[] No.44390906[source]
Articles only need click-bait titles, not pictures, in order to be profitable. Relevant and informative pictures are an unecessary expense. People don’t read articles to be informed, people read articles to feel smart. And to just feel smart, you don’t actually need a picture.
replies(1): >>44391622 #
1. quesera ◴[] No.44391622[source]
More to the point -- even if there were no pictures, I'm sure the ads loaded successfully.

For those who browse without protection, at least.