> Basically, the very big and undeniable shit hits you, immediately, right now, with regularity, while the hypothetical bits of maybe good news always are touted as breakthrough even though they will just be "for some times later".
This just seems like an argument against transparency in research which I think is the wrong direction to take things since it's more helpful to the overall direction of research to publish incremental results so others can build on them sooner. You may be misconstruing the reporting of small, incremental steps as something akin to crying wolf when really you're just seeing all the hard work that goes into solving big problems that eventually produces "very big undeniable shit". It's all part of the same thing, small steps move you towards a big goal, it's hard to get as excited about them as it is about the final product but you can't have the latter without the former.
> This just seems like an argument against transparency in research.
Sorry if that sounded this way. As I said, "kudos to the researchers". They probably have good reasons to be happy, and we can cheer them for that - but the expections for the word "breakthrough" to be used for the layman are not met, sorry.
This just seems like an argument against transparency in research which I think is the wrong direction to take things since it's more helpful to the overall direction of research to publish incremental results so others can build on them sooner. You may be misconstruing the reporting of small, incremental steps as something akin to crying wolf when really you're just seeing all the hard work that goes into solving big problems that eventually produces "very big undeniable shit". It's all part of the same thing, small steps move you towards a big goal, it's hard to get as excited about them as it is about the final product but you can't have the latter without the former.