Re:Nobel laureates are 22 times more likely to have hobbies ...
by tjr on Sunday January 26, 2020 @09:22PM
(#22156402)
It appears that the actual title of the article is "Hobbies are not distractions", with the HN submission title being... I'm not sure it's really a subtitle, maybe a pull-out point from the quoted reference in the article?
[Edit: though, since it looks like the author wrote both the article and the HN submission, this point might be somewhat irrelevant.] :-)
Re:Nobel laureates are 22 times more likely to have hobbies ...
by DoreenMichele on Sunday January 26, 2020 @09:25PM
(#22156409)
Thanks. I have sucktastic eyesight and only skimmed a bit.
So this is also a pointless violation of HN guidelines, which indicate you should use the original title unless it's clickbait or a few other provisos.
Re:Nobel laureates are 22 times more likely to have hobbies ...
by DoreenMichele on Monday January 27, 2020 @02:20AM
(#22157441)
Of course, "the first rule of downvotes is don't talk about the downvotes", but I've been genuinely puzzled by why this particular comment has so many downvotes. And I think it's because the title was changed at some point, apparently without a note being left anywhere indicating that. It didn't originally have the part about "compared to their peers".
Re:Nobel laureates are 22 times more likely to have hobbies ...
by hola_mundo on Sunday January 26, 2020 @09:21PM
(#22156391)
Ah, got it. Can’t argue with that!
This one basically sucks -- IMO, of course.