I get that the typical reader of the New York Times probably has absolutely no memory of, say, high school chemistry. My own memory of high school chemistry is shaky enough, but I know how to use google to remind myself of things I am interested in. And I get that the typical New York Times reader is probably more interested in knowing that a comet smells like rotten eggs and urine than knowing that the comet possibly has hydrogen sulfide, and there's way too much stuff in urine to be able to guess what "smells like urine" means.
But why couldn't they just... put the chemistry in a footnote or something? Or at least link directly to the actual results that indicate that the comet surface is organic rich?
This entry was published Mon Jan 26 11:52:03 CST 2015 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2015-01-22 22:39:28.0.