3 ms·
Isn't the retraction of the paper the author's point? That people are pushing nonsense and it is getting into "peer-reviewed" journals? The rest of your commen
by fastball 4y ago
Isn't the retraction of the paper the author's point? That people are pushing nonsense and it is getting into "peer-reviewed" journals?
The rest of your comment doesn't really follow the HN guidelines when it comes to the principle of charity – you seem to be trying to deliberately come up with the worst possible interpretation of each point rather than actually attempting to have a constructive conversation about these things.
- vector_spaces 4y agoThe article is similar though. The "gaze" of the reader is doing all the heavy lifting here. Weiss is relying on us finding e.g. the ribbons indicating proximity preferences, and all the talk titles and so on as silly and as ridiculous as she does. What exactly is there left to engage with when you remove the bad faith ranting against her peers and junior researchers? Personally I don't think the original article itself meets site guidelines. It's culture war content, it's entirely in bad faith, and it's inviting (for the most part) really ugly and uninteresting discussion. There's little to seriously engage with here in a way that meets site guidelines