They discovered that, in the last glacial period, Earth experienced its highest CO2 increase: 14 parts per million in just 55 years. Not, our planet experiences that increase every five years.
I have been noticing silly typos all over the place in articles for the last few years, but have no memory of those being common in the past. I guess editors proofreading articles isn’t really a thing anymore?
It’s probably mostly AI-driven now. It sees the word ‘Not’ is spelled correctly, so it’s good to go.
Looks more like relying on spellcheck than AI.
Spell check was the first LLM.
Everyone fired their editors in 2008.
I’m going to hazard a guess it’s a combination of falling budget and an over reliance on autocorrect. If it’s like other industries, they’re trying to get more articles out with fewer people.
I know that I often have an atrocious number of typos - but some are entirely the fault of autocorrect either changing a correct word to something else or correcting a typo to a word that makes no sense in the context of the sentence. I’m hoping that the next generation will improve this.
If anything a now - not typo at least indicates that it was written by a human. LLM errors generally don’t involve that sort of thing.
They discovered that, in the last glacial period, Earth experienced its highest CO2 increase: 14 parts per million in just 55 years. Not, our planet experiences that increase every five years.
I’ve been reading this and just can’t get my head around the last bit. What are they trying to say? O.o
An increase that used to take 55 years now takes 5.
It’s a typo. It’s supposed to be “now” instead of “not”
Thank you… the world makes sense again. I thought I was stroking out.
It’s either a typo, or a lot or sass for a PopSci article.
“Look at this huge, unparalleled rise in carbon levels millions of years ago, it’s so huge… Psych! We do that every five years! Buckle in, buckaroo, things are about to get bad!”
I only skimmed this article but is it trying to bring home the seriousness of and need to reverse man-made global warming by citing an entirely natural example.
Based on other comments the operative comparison is the previous worst case took 55 years to build up the level of CO2 that now only takes 5 years.
deleted by creator
Yeah you are probably right if a bit snarky but it seemed an awkward, cobbled together thing so didn’t spend too much time.
climate destruction
Shouldn’t have expecteted less with “ever” in the title.
