> "Curiosity has found many rocks like this one, which were formed by ancient water combined with billions of years of sandblasting by the wind," NASA representatives wrote in the statement.
I wish there was a scale that quantifies the degree to which an article headline struggles to attract clicks at the expense of accuracy. Looking further, I find that the JPL source article (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia26634-curiositys-chemcam-...) used a similar headline, perhaps a bit less click-baity.
I grant that the term "dendritic," which conveys the intended meaning without sensationalism, might be too technical for a wide audience. But "dendritic" doesn't suggest a living organism to the degree that "Shaped Like Coral" (from the JPL headline) does. And in retrospect the JPL headline begs to be turned into "... multi-billion-year-old 'coral' on Mars".
But I wait with bated breath for the next iteration, titled "Scientists Baffled By Coral Reef on Mars!"
It would be cool if it was coral, if maybe unlikely. Apparently rocks may have been thrown from Earth to Mars by large asteroid collisions like the one that got the dinosaurs.
9 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 25.9 ms ] thread"NASA finds another coral-like rock on mars"
To save you a click
Also related post from the same day: NASA's Curiosity picks up new skills https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44790271
I grant that the term "dendritic," which conveys the intended meaning without sensationalism, might be too technical for a wide audience. But "dendritic" doesn't suggest a living organism to the degree that "Shaped Like Coral" (from the JPL headline) does. And in retrospect the JPL headline begs to be turned into "... multi-billion-year-old 'coral' on Mars".
But I wait with bated breath for the next iteration, titled "Scientists Baffled By Coral Reef on Mars!"