The article felt a bit flat. Surely there's no such thing as "oops, monkey died, let me just grab the next one off the shelf". There's no real reporting into the why or how, just uncritical repeating of the complaint that the neuralink research is dangerous / unethical. The reporting is so flimsy that one starts to look at the page and ask "wait, what site am I on anyway?" Hmm, I wonder what sort of bias a site called consequence has.
So naturally I click around. It appears to be some sort of music blog, with articles that are primarily focused on celebrity outrage gossip. Well, that explains a bit. Still neuralink is a bit outside their wheelhouse. How did this article get on their front page. Scrolling around at the top we see that the contributor basically just paraphrased what he read elsewhere for clicks. "Via Business Insider and the New York Post, the news comes from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an animal-rights group..."
Ok, so its a report of a report of an animal rights group claiming they plan to file a complaint (but haven't done so yet). This is all rather tenuous.
So naturally I click around. It appears to be some sort of music blog, with articles that are primarily focused on celebrity outrage gossip. Well, that explains a bit. Still neuralink is a bit outside their wheelhouse. How did this article get on their front page. Scrolling around at the top we see that the contributor basically just paraphrased what he read elsewhere for clicks. "Via Business Insider and the New York Post, the news comes from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an animal-rights group..."
Ok, so its a report of a report of an animal rights group claiming they plan to file a complaint (but haven't done so yet). This is all rather tenuous.