Well, as somebody who likes complaining, I don’t like your new title either; evolution doesn’t ‘invent’ anything, and anthropomorphising it just confuses people (see also generative ai, grumble mutter).
Really? I think it kind of does invent. Trial and error. Back propagation. Mutation. Some randomness at conception. Sure it's a personification, but not a bad one.
The evolutionary fitness of a particular adaptation helps spread the genes that causes the adaptation. I think backpropagation is a very apt description for that phenomenon
What a pedantic take. I’m sure you would prefer a lot of things, but changing the title of an article you didn’t write or publish is a stretch. The articles showing off a very interesting aspect of nature and ‘one of [the] cleverest inventions’ is a fine headline without questioning how many other ‘inventions’ have occurred that might also be clever in the hopes of changing it. They’d also be ‘one of the cleverest’ if and when they get their own article.
I thought this was a aaron comment at first, then I saw a reply button, and whitewashed comment below.
> Pet peve: I don't like superlative descriptions. They're often counterproductive, because they call for a rebuttal.
Pet peeve: People who HAVE to rebut things like superlative descriptions. They're always counterproductive, because literally nothing actually called for a rebuttal. It clutters up the conversation much worse than "well, actually" corrections.
