What were you expecting? I read that as "a bug in the Seaborn graphing library caused wrong conclusions" and don't understand what other interpretations there are.
I'd never heard of the Seaborn library. And since Seaborn is the first word of the title, I assumed it was capitalized for that reason only.
So I thought the article would be about some ocean-faring insect or microbe that somehow affected scientists' mental acuity.
This is what I was expecting. And the title of this HN article is not the same as the title of the linked Arxiv report.
Ailment transmitted at sea has somehow made science less impactful.
Ahhh, "sea-borne bug", that makes sense, thanks!
alternatively seaborn as in where this insect was born. but an even weirder statement
I have never heard of the Seaborn graphing library; I was curious as to how a marine virus or bacterium could cause a "finding of declining disruptiveness". maybe a similar mechanism to Toxoplasma gondii?
Like others, expecting a wildy different article...