I make people upset just by using my eyes and brain, as such please be careful to ensure your tears do not get into your electronics, thank you

  • 0 Posts
  • 239 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 26th, 2023

help-circle

  • but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.

    you know, there is a difference between “getting published in Nature” and “submitting your work to Nature”. It’s subtle, perhaps: one involves being published in the journal. For the world to see and scrutinize.

    I bet they get lots of letters that they do, indeed, find aren’t well substantiated enough to publish.

    Also, one field. Lmao.

    Also, please tell me why you made your first comment, I’m genuinely curious. Did you read about this somewhere? Where, if you recall?



  • that sounds like the dumbest horseshit I’ve ever heard of, both because an educational journal is built on its reputation, and because even if it were true, you’d still be wrong to imply that’s a bad thing for a different reason: proving some other guy wrong is part of the process.

    let’s assume – even for a brief moment – you are, in fact, 100% correct with this claim.

    You’re almost definitely not, but hey, let’s assume.

    scientists are all about being right, so much so that they loathe their own frauds (watch some BobbyBroccoli documentaries if you don’t believe me), and they also take extreme pleasure in disproving each other. sometimes, good science is in trying to disprove what some other guy or some other team said because “I want to be right/I want that fucker I hate to be wrong (we’re all petty humans, even scientists)/I want us to understand the world better, and we need to know if this is in fact as they claim”. Peer review is ingrained in their doctrine, that’s what good science is. You think if someone, a person with enemies, competition, and friends alike, got their paper in one of the most prestigious educational journals in the world, someone, somewhere wouldn’t be going “nuh-uh! I bet I can prove otherwise!”? And at that point it’s two scholars betting their career dick to swing around that they’re right and the other guy’s wrong, unless of course peer review actually means that prestigious journals generally don’t publish horseshit.

    in short: your claim is not only wrong, it is… a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works as a concept, I feel? Maybe not always in practice – there’s always politics sticking their dick into the mix to muddy the waters – but that’s part of what these journals pay and charge for. Prestigious peers. To review papers and generally make sure that nothing they publish is outright bullshit.

    now, are they fair prices for knowledge that helps us all is another debate, but suffice to say: going “fuck you I’m gonna find out if you’re wrong” is literally part of the job.

    Are you just, like… not that bright? Or is this just a transient phase, a hard night for you?







  • yeah, you know, I’m all for inclusion and making everyone feel seen, but I feel like you have to draw the line somewhere before things start getting ridiculous and we have an initialism that’s like, 10+ characters long. I was cool with extending it to a point, but it is genuinely getting to the point of absurdity if you were to try speaking it aloud.

    edit: idea: we gotta find an acronym. And I don’t just mean one acronym, I mean a good, well-branded acronym like NASA, but one that also changes for every time we as a species decide another character is warranted. We gotta make an acronym with expansion in mind



  • archonet@lemy.loltolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldHannah Montana Linux
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    you must’ve not seen Mint in a long time if you think it looks like Windows 95, I’m using it right now and it looks much nicer.

    Further, that’s really not the cutting dig you think it is. Windows 95, for all its boxy, gray 90s aesthetic, was a very clean UI with minimal bullshit. If you like ricing your desktop/want it to look fancy, great, I’m happy for you. Most normal users, on the other hand, really don’t care how their OS looks as long as they can find what they need to. For normal users, the OS should be an invisible plinth that other programs you actually give a fuck about sit on top of. Mint stays the fuck out of my way to that end impeccably well.


  • archonet@lemy.loltolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldHannah Montana Linux
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    Mint is (subjectively, for 90% of people), because something a lot of Linux nerds seem to forget is that the average computer user does not even want to think about their operating system. 90%+ of people who use a computer want it to turn on and just work for the things they want to do, and for like, 99% of the time, Mint has been just that for me for a solid year and a half. I adore it for that reason, and wish more Windows users would just try switching to it. I understand the apprehension not to, having tried other distros over the years (and having fought with Bazzite on my steam deck on multiple occasions), but it really does “just work”.

    like I get it, some like to fiddle-fuck with their OS, and that’s cool, but that does not appeal to the majority of people and pretending it should is asinine. Some of us want to view and use our computer as an appliance/a means to an end, not a project in and of itself. When I used Windows and had issues, you know how much fun I had digging around in Event Viewer, or Group Policy Editor, or Regedit, or Control Panel? Zero. Zero fun was had. Same amount of fun I have dicking around with Linux. I want my computer to turn on, do what I tell it to, nothing I don’t (this is the sticking point that got me to leave Windows), and god damnit if it breaks it’d better be as easy as googling an error message (which, Mint also has enough reach/widespread use that it usually is). Anyone who disagrees, I applaud your patience, but that is simply not the way I and most other people operate.

    And salty Linux ricer downvotes get me moist, so bring it on, dweebs.




  • archonet@lemy.loltoMemes@sopuli.xyzTalented child artist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    so is making regular pornography, only with regular porn you’re unlikely to require a working knowledge of animal genitalia, so it’s actually better. having said that, I think the world would just plain be better off with another oglaf or cyanide & happiness, don’t you?





  • archonet@lemy.loltoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldGuess I'm on the right track 😌
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    lol

    furthermore: lmao

    It will never not be funny to me that some people are so chronically online they think everyone else gives as much of a fuck about made up internet points as they do, and more, will go to such an extraordinary effort on a site which doesn’t have cumulative karma like reddit did. which they are either too stupid to realize or too angry to care. these guys not only need to touch grass, they need to go disappear into the woods and become one with nature for a few weeks.

    lastly, ow, fuck, my sides!