| ▲ | joshellington 5 hours ago | |
There must be a better format and distribution method than this. Ideologically a strong brand name and domain, yet ads every two sentences. Even with ad blocking, there is constant aggressive attempts at attention. I propose the communal brain rot is less to do with short form video, and more to do with the everyday experience of trying to read something enlightening, tickle your curiosity - and be just absolutely fucking hammered with autoplay interstitials and 720x90 and 300x250 bullshit. | ||
| ▲ | Cthulhu_ 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
There is, the article links to a source, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-1-900-year-..., which you need a $5/month subscription for. I'm sure hidden in the links is a link to the paper, which you can pay to get the no-nonsense study. This is the third or fourth degree of scientific reporting; first is the paper, second is a news report, third is adult pop sci magazines, fourth is youth pop sci magazines. Pick your poison / preference. | ||
| ▲ | hirako2000 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Do you pay for satisfy your curiosity? In fact, that institution is non profit and publicly funded, so what gives... Anyhow reading the piece with Brave showed me no ads whatsoever. | ||