This overseas reblog of a pop science blog which co-blogged a piece from @beckyoskin working for a blogring does not pass the smell test. At the very least, the headline is garbage.
There is no link to the source (here: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/3/1/63/pdf), no supporting material presented, it makes some odd claims starting with "ants prefer to live on active faults" (this paper says nothing about that - it's talking about ants that happen to be found in a geologically interesting faulting area) and ends up with "ants can predict earthquakes". Which then goes up to the headline.
Stop stop stop stop stop.
This paper is a decent exploration of performing day+night video analysis to describe above-ground ant behavior over large periods. The rest of it seems reaching and improbable, but I don't have the background to comment on any of the math or geology presented.
Ok, nevermind on the siting bit, the paper is drafting on her PHD thesis which presumably supports the argument that these ants mounds correlate with faults.
tl;dl - Longtime ant researcher is resigned to the fact _individual_ ants are incredibly stupid and ineffective, sometimes just carrying a stick back and forth for days. But in colonies - somehow brilliance can emerge. They'll can predict major thunderstorms well enough in advance to build defensive walls around the entrance to their colony to direct floods around it.
Call it a pilot study and go ask for funding. Seriously, if a specific behavior can be reproduced five times in a row that is pretty indicative that something is happening. Of course, uncovering the root cause is going to be quite hard.
Stop posting stuff from Times of India, this tabloid has one of the least thoughtful papers of the country! If by chance you find a good journalism piece in this tabloid, it is mostly lifted from somewhere else.
I'm really starting to dislike the number of snarky comments on HN. I used to love the fact that I never saw them. They have become much more common recently. In flux of new users? georgemcbay isn't, but why the increase?? It's why I don't read comments on reddit and why I always liked reading them here. <sigh>
My thoughts exactly. I wish there was a way to filter them out other than downvoting. Something like a "flag as non-constructive" button with a corresponding settings entry, allowing to either not show them at all or change the display style so that they could be skimmed through quickly.
I personally come to HN to learn new things, not to participate in witty banter.
The Twitter Python lady incident led to a high number of Redditors coming to HN. They liked the deep content here and many decided to stay, not yet understanding the rules.
There is no truth to the idea that ants are being sent to prison. That was the snarkiness in the comment. One can understand and agree with a sentiment (that sending those scientists to jail was bad) without trying to turn everything into a dig or barb at something else.
A large number of people liked and lie HN because of an environment best categorized as earnest, inquisitive, and constructive. I got the reference, and the post you replied to probably did as well, but even if not, the point still stands.
There is no link to the source (here: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/3/1/63/pdf), no supporting material presented, it makes some odd claims starting with "ants prefer to live on active faults" (this paper says nothing about that - it's talking about ants that happen to be found in a geologically interesting faulting area) and ends up with "ants can predict earthquakes". Which then goes up to the headline.
Stop stop stop stop stop.
This paper is a decent exploration of performing day+night video analysis to describe above-ground ant behavior over large periods. The rest of it seems reaching and improbable, but I don't have the background to comment on any of the math or geology presented.