The photo is subtitled “ Representative image of a vintage notebook, not Marie Curie's. Photo via Pexels.” so it’s clear it’s not trying to be deceptive. It’s entirely common, even among the best human authors, to put in a photo to give some idea of a topic when actual photos are hard to obtain.
Space Daily articles are produced with AI assistance and reviewed by editorial staff before publication
You can tell. The photo is of a vintage notebook with aircraft diagrams, totally unrelated to Marie Curie.
This would be a great topic but this specific article isn't worth your time.
The image is somewhat excusable even though it's a strange choice. But the text is full of AI tropes, which is not excusable IMO.
> This would be a great topic but this specific article isn't worth your time.
Why? Do you think it reports inaccurate facts? Personally, I found it interesting and easy to read.
The photo is subtitled “ Representative image of a vintage notebook, not Marie Curie's. Photo via Pexels.” so it’s clear it’s not trying to be deceptive. It’s entirely common, even among the best human authors, to put in a photo to give some idea of a topic when actual photos are hard to obtain.
The notebooks should be scanned in color high resolution and then made available online. No need for close proximity after that.
I love the irony that her notebooks are something to be feared.