kernelle @ kernelle @lemmy.world

Posts

7

Comments

162

Joined

2 yr. ago

You could start by downloading your Google data raw, much easier to explore your own data if it's all on the same drive.

Exactly, folding phones have so many issues people very rarely buy a folding one again.

He's clearly taking the "but it's better for human kind" stand, which I support with all I can. But academics can be guilty of gatekeeping and being pretentious, which I've seen by many lmao

Yep. I kept baconreader installed with an API patch so when I click on a reddit link I didn't have to interact with their horrible interface, earlier this week I clicked one and the app still worked, now it doesn't. When I was switching being able to continue using my app was a godsend, now I won't even bother with changing my User-Agent lmao.

I'd say living for eternity doesn't imply being conscious for that time.

Edit: Eternal recurrence could be a fun thing to witness

Reporting your conclusions doesn't require being public. It means the larger group of people you release it to, the less bias you'll have. Meaning in a closed organisation you have added biases of companies and marginally less people to prove you wrong, decreasing the overal quality of the conducted science. But still science, which by definition isn't black and white.

For sure, and calling Elon a twat would be an insult to twats out there. But saying "if it's not published it's not science" to one of the greatest grifters while having to explain the nuance of what you tweeted is a big L in my book.

I agree though, we can argue open science is much better and more reliable. We can argue privatly conducting a study and doing all the steps that would be conducted by the academic community within one organisation leads to more biased and less reliable results. But it's still science by its very definition, I'd even argue denying that is a bit disrespectful to all scientists doing so.

An organisation with fully independent teams tackling the same problems can absolutely be defined as peer review. Not in the traditional sense, but reviewing, confirming and replicating nonetheless. Following the scientific method is what makes something scientific, not the act of publishing.

You can argue of the merits of those papers, an organisation can never make public statements about private research. But saying that what their doing is not science, then you're just needlessly gatekeeping.

I think the word you're looking for is merit, publication which are cited and peer reviewed hold much more merit than those who don't.

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. 1

Nothing in this quote requires external publication. Following the scientific method, publishing, peer reviewing and reproduction can all happen internally in organisation using independent teams. Those private publications hold but a fraction of the merit of publications in recognised journals, but are science nonetheless.

Seems like the only difference is that if it's public or not ie published. I think it becomes a matter of opinion then, because independent teams within the same organisation can absolutely peer review eachother, use completely different methodology to prove the same hypothesis and publish papers internally so it can be reproduced internally.

Science should be made public, but just because it's not doesn't mean it's not science. When the organisation starts making public claims they should have to back that up along the official route, but they could just as well keep their findings a secret, use that secret to improve their working formula and make bank while doing that. Not calling their internal peer reviewed studies science just seems pretentious.

I feel like I'm missing something here so I'll be the devil's advocate, why can't unpublished papers be reproducible? Multiple teams could independently be verifying hypotheses and results under the same organisation, adhere to the same standard but never publish, that would still be science no? Not doing humanity any favours, but science nonetheless.

Just please don't look how our politicians have reacted to the Israeli conflict

Nah, the same reason why DJ's can be good or bad. Guiding the vibe of the audience is what they do, playing with the tension and energy of the crowd. Pleasing a crowd is easier than one specific person though, but the same rules apply when picking songs for yourself.

"an error" okaay

I definitely get why, but people have been paranoid of interacting with bots, shills or astroturfers for as long as the internet exists. Calling someone either of these without asking to elaborate on their comment is just adding to the polarisation and intolerance of our platforms.

Often when I try to talk to people with wildly different opinions they just come back with those insults because "who can ever disagree with my opinion? They must be trolling."

So I definitely blame people for jumping to the wrong conclusions.

It's always "but it comes from the Latin and it means cute fury flying thing". Why not just name it Cute Bee Furry Face and be done with it?

When you're harvesting the blood iron of your enemies you don't have time for ethics. A controlled study managed 4 weeks within ethical boundaries, maybe we can cut that in half unethically. So 14 days, 3000 . 14 = 115 years. So when you torture two people, you could manage to do 58 years. Better start early!

I'm so used to roundabouts and red lights. They're annoying for the lone driver, but add a bit of traffic and they move everything along so much smoother.

Damn you might as well have told everyone you flog puppies for fun