Liz @ Liz @midwest.social

Posts

5

Comments

1,119

Joined

2 yr. ago

A practically guaranteed scenario, no doubt.

I mean, how many children get abused because people are too afraid to seek help? It's not an area with an easy answer, and I don't have hard numbers on how much harm either scenario would produce.

We really gotta flip the standard and make therapist sessions 100% confidential. We should encouraging people to seek help in stopping their bad behavior, no matter what it is, and they're less likely to do that if they think a therapist could report them.

Alternate explanation:

Hormone: Pretty much any chemical your body uses for intra-body signaling. Signaling in this case can be anything from dumping adrenaline in order to move blood preferentially to the muscles, to the production of estrogen in order to promote cell growth in certain organs.

Steroid: A particular class of compounds grouped by the existence of a particular quartet of carbon atom rings inside each of the molecular structures. They have a very wide range of roles across the tree of life. Examples include, but are not limited to: testosterone, cholesterol, ergosterol, and progesterone.

Steroid (colloquial meaning): Pretty much any performance enhancing drug, including hormones and actual steroids.

No it is not.

“The SBAT value is not applied to dual-boot systems that boot both Windows and Linux and should not affect these systems,” the bulletin read. “You might find that older Linux distribution ISOs will not boot. If this occurs, work with your Linux vendor to get an update.”

Excuse me, those are the opposite of each other.

Spelling is bulshit.

The proper name for them is police, not criminals, silly!

Vigilante justice is orders of magnitude worse.

Vigilante justice has as notoriously bad false positive rate.

Literally just any news article from when it was happening.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

The Taliban offered to give up Bin Ladin in exchange for us to stop bombing them before our invasion. We refused and invaded anyway. Worked out great, I'm told.

But why would your question be "is this bad?" Just learn a little about it and decide for yourself.

They just pushed an email announcement out, which is probably where OP heard about it.

I think you're placing a lot more weight on the authority of a single scientific paper than any actual scientist ever would. If you have one paper, you have one paper. If you have a series of papers all put out by the same lab... maybe there's something there, maybe not. If other groups start publishing similar papers, okay this is sometime serious.

In some of the messier sciences, like medicine, people will publish meta-studies, where they combine results from similar, but independently published, papers and see what they can come up with using the combined data. People will also publish literature reviews, where they essentially try to summarize the state of the science in their particular little niche. To trust a single study in medicine is to hitch your horse to a wicket.

The peer review process doesn't stop wrong papers from getting published, just obviously wrong or bad ones. I'm not entirely sure what you could even do to stop wrong papers from making into journals, since often times the problem isn't in the published experimental design or analysis. Plus, there's some papers that used to be right, but have become wrong as things change.

they're apparently lower effort than a good reddit comment

They're not, people are being flippant. People frequently complain about having to do peer reviews specifically because it's unpaid labor. Regardless, if the paper is so wrong it would warrant a community note on Twitter, the paper would be strongly rejected. The standard for acceptance is way higher than that. Remember that it gets reviewed by fellow experts in the field. They will easily spot small errors.

Is it the best possible system? Heck if I know. It works. Moving to a different system would require everyone to recalibrate their understanding of what good science looks like. We know how to identify it under the current publication model, it would take a fair bit of time to adjust to the new one.

Edit: Oh yes, re: letters. It can take a year or more between publications. Letters might be slow, but it's not terribly important. It takes time to do science, you don't need to clap back in an instant.

A peer review really is just someone checking for glaring errors. If a paper gets published and someone had some real beef with it, best they can do is some of their own research to prove how shitty the other team was. After that, there are some journals that will publish letters where people comment on previous articles. But generally, most articles just get mildly ignored. It's only after a pattern of corroborating evidence piles up that people will start to say that the results of a particular early study were significant.

Mind you, the details about how this consensus process works varies from field to field. Particle physics has a different culture than hydrology. But, in general, one paper is not enough to hang your hat on.

For any scientific journal that's worth anything, your article has to get approved by other scientists in your field before the journal will accept it. They're mostly just looking for exactly what this post is referencing. Does it seem legit? If it passes a once-over by the other scientists, then it gets published.

This is why you should not trust any single study by itself. It's just the results from one experiment that easily could have had a consequential error no one picked up. The results could be statistical noise. Hell, even rarely, you'll get someone who's been faking data. This is not to say "science is broken," only that science has never relied on the results from a single unreplicated experiment to determine truth. If you read about scientists from the past, it's fairly common for them to publish a landmark paper and for no one to care, or even for people to argue they're wrong. Only with additional research do they get proved correct and we imagine that everyone immediately accepted this new paradigm shift off of one single paper.

What is this movie?

If repairability and upgradability are you big priorities, the framework 13 is the best choice, by far. Your won't need repairman Dave, you'll be able to do it yourself. But, it's more of a generalist machine and it sounds like you really want to be able to play around with the GPU. The Framework 16 can come with a GPU, but it would be out of your price range.