MarkusQ

22 ms·

361.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
Dang! A typo, a typo; I do confess't.
362.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
Which is exactly what they are doing. https://unn.ua/en/news/ukraine-launches-starlink-whitelist-i...
363.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
Indeed. And all of them, iirc, to the point.
364.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
Nobody is advocating for a rude communication style; the disagreement is over what constitutes rudeness. Some people/cultures see being blunt or to the point as rude. Others see beating around the bush, wasting time and hogging the lis
365.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
Not the GP, but I'm an avid reader. One of the books I read (Strunk & White's Elements of Style) had this to say to aspiring writers: "Omit needles words."
366.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
Or maybe more like expecting Italian food and getting pizza?
367.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
It's not anti-science, it's anti-science-journalism-hype. Science depends on accurately reporting facts, being clear about the limits of your findings, and seeking explanations that survive scrutiny. Science journalism has other
368.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
"Also funding to spend the time writing it up when you find that you've inadvertently been tricked into doing the work while trying to get something that builds on it to work." Oh there have been times would have loved to be
369.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
Which is why we need people "doing science" to also focus on getting rid of bad ideas rather than just coming up with more. The present incentive structure is such that we reward people for coming up with shocking new ideas even
370.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
"Are you seriously attempting to imply that Nature retractions aren't few and far between?" No. I'm explicitly stating that they are few and far between, but perhaps (not certainly, but conceivably) they shouldn't
371.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
They certainly will be few and far between when the system is structured to repress them. But there's reason to believe they wouldn't be as rare as you seem to think: https://www.nature.com/nature/articles?ty
372.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
Also, "science" isn't some sort of dogma that you should trust, it's a process you should follow. "Trust the science" is anathema to the process. If anything, the chant should be "Doubt the science! Give
373.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
Not really. "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so." Knowing that something I thought was true was actually false would have saved me years in several situations.
374.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
"strong incentives to focus on moving the state of the art forward without expending energy on improving the field as a whole" That sort of Orwellian doublethink is exactly the problem. They need to move it forward without improv
375.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
From the article: "Microscopy showed that neuronal and synaptic membranes were intact, and tests for mitochondrial activity revealed no metabolic damage. Electrical recordings of neurons showed that, despite moderate deviations compare
376.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
Pretty cool. And we don't even need to tag it "In mice" because the headline says so up front. Thinking about it, that's almost as impressive as what the scientists did.
377.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
Yep. And probably increased allergies. Possibly decreased fertility. And who knows what else.
378.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
Systemic cost. We could have paper shredders, blenders, toasters, water taps, and so on that just ran all the time, but our utility bills would be ginormous. Same thing for our bodies.
379.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
Clarke's second law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Also see Minsky's "Perce
380.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
Raises.
381.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
I've seen some forums (mostly political) where you have to prove that you can act like a child to be welcome. So that's kind of like what you're talking about? (If anyone is offended by this, don't worry, I'm talki
382.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
I was talking about the article, actually.
383.
by MarkusQ 7mo ago
I would really like to be able to read something and find out that it's about whatever it said it was going to be about, and not bait to trick me into hearing about the author's 1) politics, 2) sexuality, 3) AI use or 4) investmen
384.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
"Easy" is relative. If the comparison is completely abandoning fossil fuels, launching continent sized parasols into space, running a significant fraction of the atmosphere through a magic filter, etc. the bar is quite different
385.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
So sink them in the ocean. Or better, burn off the hydrogen and use the energy to dry the wood, leaving the bulk of the carbon, and then mix that in with the soil. Recreating the lignite era process could be as easy as genetically engineer
386.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Dumping wet wood--even very, very wet wood in a lake and sinking it to the bottom does not "remove a massive amount of fresh water from the ecosystem". It does not remove any fresh water from the ecosystem.
387.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
You may want to update that, given recent advances in generative AI. No idea what you should update to, mind you, but the old era of photographic evidence is on its last jpgs.
388.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Because a lot of people are deeply invested in the present system perhaps? As the article pointed out, there's a lot of money involved, and there are a lot of people who've built their lives around flourishing in the existing sys
389.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Sorry. I meant "peer reviewed prior to publication" as the phrase is presently used. I thought that was obvious. What you're calling "peer review" is what I would call "discussed" or "debated"
390.
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
Part of the problem is we got tricked into thinking "peer reviewed" meant "true," or at least something like it. It doesn't. Not even close. Peer review doesn't even mean that it's free from errors, free

More ›