Bashing Time magazine just never gets old. Nearly every month, there seems to be something that makes it worth taking a screenshot of and then laughing about. Here's this month's screenshot:
There I was, gazing at this seemingly amazing sight of two 100,000 light year-wide objects colliding with each other at some ungodly speed (BTW, thanks, Mary), when I glance at the lower right corner of the screen and notice the headline that's part of the magazine's "While you're here, you might want to waste more time reading..." feature, which I circled in green to make sure that you, too, do not miss what's really amazing today:
Kate Middleton's Amazing Fashion Evolution
Now, I get the idea that not everyone is interested in astronomy, and I also get the idea that some people actually are interested in fashion. Yes, I'm not one of those people. However, even assuming I were interested in fashion, I suspect I'd be less than amazed by Kate Middleton's fashion evolution, whatever that might be.
If your interests run more along the lines mine usually do, you might need a bit of background here. Kate Middleton is married to some British prince or another (Andrew? No, it's the other one), and is thus very famous. I mainly find her recognizable because I'm a heterosexual male who isn't dead yet, and she's frequently featured on the magazine covers one sees in the checkout lines at the supermarket. Why others find her interesting, I'm less sure, but I suppose they have their reasons.
The reason I don't think it's terribly amazing that Ms. Middleton has changed her fashion sense is that she's a young woman, and she's now a member of one of the more visible families on the planet. Heck, I'd be amazed if she didn't change her wardrobe. Anyone who remembers how girls dress in high school and college should know what I'm talking about with the "she's a young woman" part.
So, why does Time magazine, who surely must understand these things better than I, think this is so amazing? I have no idea. I didn't check the link. If you do, please feel free to let me know.
To get full credit, though, be prepared to tell me why I should care.
For any U.K. readers who might have happened by, please understand that this isn't about some distaste or disinterest in your culture. I can name the last three Prime Ministers, although I keep having to remind myself that Mr. Blair's first name is not "Phony". This is about Time magazine's seeming desire to keep us entertained with trivia, when there are so many genuinely fascinating things to be interested in.
2 comments:
They missed the truly amazing news:
"Approximately 500 years ago, two galaxies collided..."
Those galaxies are 45 million light years away. And we're seeing it, only 500 years later? Forget faster-than-light starships, we have faster-than-light light.
True. I don't know what they were talking about there. The galaxies, as you say, are millions of light years away, and they are, I'm sure somewhere near 100,000 light years in their long dimension (at least to an order of magnitude). Yet they've clearly been at that colliding thing for a while now.
Post a Comment