>This article describes a new research result as a new research result, not as "trillion dollar industry by 2027".
I don't like that language either, but it may be wise to understand that different audiences are reading this, and it may be effective for the author to reach the others in this way. And besides, in general it's easier for a rationalist to ignore such language than it is for an industrialist to add it.
Bollocks. "Hype language" has a very strong correlation with people who don't know what they're talking about. (Probably because most people who use it do not, in fact, know what they're talking about, even if some might.) So other experts in the field will look down on you if you speak like a British university press release.
I agree with you. I just think it is wasted effort to complain about the quality of press releases. I am consigned to their poor quality, and my solution is to read primary sources.
Comments
>This article describes a new research result as a new research result, not as "trillion dollar industry by 2027".
I don't like that language either, but it may be wise to understand that different audiences are reading this, and it may be effective for the author to reach the others in this way. And besides, in general it's easier for a rationalist to ignore such language than it is for an industrialist to add it.
Bollocks. "Hype language" has a very strong correlation with people who don't know what they're talking about. (Probably because most people who use it do not, in fact, know what they're talking about, even if some might.) So other experts in the field will look down on you if you speak like a British university press release.
I agree with you. I just think it is wasted effort to complain about the quality of press releases. I am consigned to their poor quality, and my solution is to read primary sources.