Because that lobster has no original thoughts. Whatever insight you think he has is not unique to him and the fact that you choose to watch his content and quote him without knowing any alternative is going to make people ask questions.
I get what they did (its been something a lot of groups have been wanting to do for years) but I am curious what molecule specifically they found that worked especially well. i.e What does this thing look like? What is the new antibiotic’s mechanism of action? None of those latter details are discussed. Its something we can only guess at.
The article (and what I can access of the paper it is based on) doesn’t really give any details as to what this class is, how it works etc. All the interesting parts about this aren’t mentioned.
An appeal to nostalgia is a claim that more or less boils down to “things were better in the past.”
The NES era has a special place in my heart because those were basically the first games I played and those stick with you. But… I am not about to claim that modern equivalents aren’t as good. And I don’t feel the need to prove otherwise because I know that it isn’t their objective quality or lack thereof that made them special to me. So the question is why is it so important to you that you can “prove” the PS2 era 3d platformers were objectively superior? Are you going to suddenly flip a switch in your head that changes your opinion of them if someone manages to “prove” otherwise?
AND you have to keep in mind that you are more likely to remember good games and forget mediocre ones. There is a bias toward older games being thought of as being better because most of the garbage ended up being lost to time. Today’s stinkers are still fresh on everyones’ mind.
Fundies. Seeing how ridiculus and backward their beliefs were made me wonder about my own beliefs and one by one they failed to withstand the scrutiny I put them through.