←back to thread

73 points thunderbong | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
lo_zamoyski ◴[] No.45901621[source]
Content aside, it would be better if we avoided sources like UNILAD [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNILAD

replies(1): >>45901872 #
wonks ◴[] No.45901872[source]
I'm honestly disappointed that this post got so much attention with such a dubious source. The article doesn't even link to a press release, as far as I can tell.
replies(1): >>45901986 #
1. tokai ◴[] No.45901986[source]
It gives both the full name of fungus and the name of a researcher plus his affiliation. More information than you often get fore more 'reputable' sources. Criticizing something only on the basis of the source, while the actual content is completely fine, is peak cargo cult information literacy.