Mostly "try to avoid using 'cancer' and related terms metaphorically [when writing a scientific article]" and "avoid using the colloquial definition of 'decimate' [when writing a scientific article]." Unfortunately, people are seeing skeets out of context and don't know she's talking about SciAm.

Same. And also, the haters are this bizarre split of People Who Really Want to Keep Being Ableist, People Who Don't Get that This is Science-Specific, and People Who Are Really Weirdly Defensive About "Decimate."

Plus in this case it's literally about science writing for a science publication from the editor of that publication who is in part asking for precision on a scientific topic.

I think a LOT of people don't realize Laura is talking to a science-writing audience. But this kind of dogpile is unacceptable no matter what.

All of Bluesky being mean to Laura Helmuth, who turned Scientific American into one of the most trans-supportive major media publications *in the world,* because they didn't like a writing tip I cannot 😩😭

oh you think its funny that 300 iq males are crashing their teslas & being cooked alive by some weird type of fire thats immune to firemen

Claiming that being blocked means they've won an argument is, ironically, highly blockable. I'm on here for enjoyment; if someone does the opposite of sparking joy, I make it so I don't have to see their bullshit ever again.

"Things that didn't happen" when it's perfectly normal stuff, like something funny a kid said. (Not applicable when it's something obviously fake trying to validate an opinion, like "I was in a liberal coffee shop")

Wow. I thought "fixed it for you" went out of style like five years ago

Yeah, a couple times it has tricked me into accidentally clicking on something I wasn't looking for by jumping sponsored results into the list suddenly. Like "wait, I clicked on the first result for business A; why am I looking at a location for business B I didn't search for?"