Allowing the crystal myths to continue only leads to more harmful behavior down the road. Sure, it can work as a placebo, but so can other things that don't tend to leave someone trusting unproven methods in lieu of proven ones.
If it makes you feel any better about it, I've had the LR4 for almost 2 years without issues. Easily the best quality of life improvement for both my cats and me. Even unpowered (extended power outage), I found it more convenient because I could scoop and put it directly into the waste drawer.
It felt ridiculous when I bought it, but I'd do it again in a heartbeat if needed because of the benefits.
I do this to my boss and I think it annoys him as well.
I share something cool I observed in the lab
"So how does this relate to the project goals?"
"It doesn't! I just thought it was cool and wanted to share."
For instance, G Suite is now so thoroughly integrated into school workflows that, even if they collect nothing from students while under 13 (ha!), they are setting kids up to harvest their data in the future by forcing them to learn how to perform basic tasks only on their apps. It's like advertising fruity cigarettes or vapes, but for data.
It's not just that all of these companies harvest everyone's data, but so many of them are specifically targeting kids from as young of an age as they can.
If you really want to stop the stainless steel obsession, you could start cleaning the benches with bleach and not rinsing again afterwards. The corrosion will set in quickly.
My issue was with that type of sarcasm, which is why I responded with a similarly dismissive sarcastic remark.
Dismissing people's complaints by saying "you can go use something else/move someplace else" is unhelpful and used to negate their complaints without ever having to address their source.
I doubt many people see an anonymous counter as a huge problem itself, I don't. The point is that this is a first step in a direction we don't want to see the software go. If you don't push back against these things from the moment they show up, they will continue to slowly inch in that direction until you end up in a nightmare like Chrome or Edge.
Seems like a good idea except for how often these states already force their own spyware and backdoors onto projects. Ideally, the state would fund it, but given their history, I'd prefer costs were covered by user donations as the interests of the users are the only interests I trust. We are the only group that is truly independent of competing interests.
Crowd funding and donations obviously have their own drawbacks. Maybe we can find a work around to avoid the privacy violations of states in the future, but I don't have a simple answer for how to accomplish this. The way the FOSS community operates is currently the best alternative I've seen, but I'm sure it's not always lucrative for developers. People need to be compensated for their labor and our current systems tend to put development interests at odds with user interests.
The language of science is specific because it is beneficial to have standards that allow explicit specificity. Scientific linguistics evolve differently from the way colloquial linguistics evolves due to different motivations and this difference is okay.
The real problem isn't that scientific language is too strict but that we gatekeep scientific participation in every form, preventing most people from participating in such a way that scientific communication is not confusing. This is in addition to most scientific publications being unnecessarily written in inaccessible language. Specificity is helpful, but the excessive use of jargon and buzz-words to make yourself sound smarter through obtuse language is unhelpful for everyone involved. When jargon cannot be avoided, define it. If you cannot define it, reference a definition.
Clarity and accessibility in all scientific communication is the key to understanding.
Typical. You post a reasonable response and get a bunch of ad-pilled shit takes:
"But will you eat shit if I put a little chocolate on it?"
"If you don't eat shit, you don't deserve to interact with the internet eat."
"Maybe if you pay them a little money, they'll stop trying to serve you shit?"
Advertisers contribute nothing of value to our society and contribute little of value to even the companies they serve. Let them burn. Every action they take to "serve" me ads will be met with an equal counteraction.
We deserve to live a life without being constantly bombarded with messages telling us to buy, buy, buy! This significantly decreases our quality of life and is endemic within our entire society. What the hell are all of you who defend advertisers thinking?
Give them an inch and they will take a mile. It definitely won't be the first time.
you probably wouldn't handle something, that if dropped, would be dangerous enough to need a whole building evacuated outside of a dedicated room without wearing a full hazman suit and adhering to additional 100 precautions and safety measures
You underestimate academia.
Also, going through the old chemicals of some academic labs can lead to having the bomb squad called because they didn't dispose of an unstable reagent 30 years ago.
MeowZedong @ MeowZedong @lemmygrad.ml Posts 0Comments 492Joined 2 yr. ago
What if it's scientists murdering scientists? I know they want to sometimes.