dbingham

26 ms·

211.
by dbingham 4y ago
Honestly, we too often forget that science works in the aggregate. There are far, far too many things that can go wrong in any individual study - from biases, to mistakes, to outright fraud, to just bad luck and weird statistical flukes.
212.
by dbingham 4y ago
Not unsolvable - just difficult. Systematic problems driven by social incentives are very difficult to solve. But they can be solved. Especially if the institutions in question get behind solving them. In the case of science, a lot of th
213.
by dbingham 4y ago
This is on the roadmap. The plan is to create a "Journal" entity on the site. Editors can create a Journal on the site and then create teams of reviewers which they tag with fields. Authors submitting papers can then submit tho
214.
by dbingham 4y ago
Name suggestions welcome! I suck at naming - Peer Review was a working title intended to be somewhat tongue in cheek (similar to StackOverflow). But... because I suck at naming, it is, of course, a little on the nose. So far I haven'
215.
by dbingham 4y ago
I'm working open source and would welcome contributions! ( https://github.com/danielbingham/peerreview ) (Although, the first contribution would probably need to be getting the local working again in a new context.
216.
by dbingham 4y ago
Yep! I came across them. There are a ton of different projects and platforms out there trying to tackle this problem. But so far every alternative I've come across can only handle some of the various services the journals are provid
217.
by dbingham 4y ago
Academic and Scientific publishing. It's the primary source material of human knowledge. It should be completely open and accessible to everyone with no barriers to access the literature or to add to the literature. The structure i
218.
by dbingham 4y ago
I don't know. Here's where I start to break with some of the ways people are thinking about this. When you pay a fee to a website - do you question how they spend that money to this level of detail? Do you ask, I dunno, lets go
219.
by dbingham 4y ago
> No. If you want to grow your headcount, tell people why. If you want ten times as much money from the public ... > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial ... > ... then say what you are
220.
by dbingham 4y ago
Yeah, I think it's valid to ask whether Wikipedia's expenses are too high, or whether they are spending on the right things. But that tweet and thread are sensationalist and not doing it in a way that will lead to a reasonable dia
221.
by dbingham 4y ago
This is an extremely misleading take. Wikipedia had a really good year in 20-21, their most recent financial report. They took in $162 million, against an $111 million operating budget, and came out of the year with $240 million in assets.[
222.
by dbingham 4y ago
> I think there is a need to rate and rank and otherwise gather sentiments from researchers on papers in their field —ideally in a manner that allows for new important work to surface more easily. I think what I'm building in peer-r
223.
by dbingham 4y ago
These are only niche methods because we haven't invested in them and they hold an enormous amount of promise. The dialog around agriculture and sustainability all too often is akin to telling people to just cut their power consumption
224.
by dbingham 4y ago
Did you actually read the study linked in the article? They didn't measure anything. They used accepted values for each phase of the process taken from databases. In several areas there weren't - notably around pasturing - ther
225.
by dbingham 4y ago
Again, that is a chart based on a single source. Which may or may not be open access and I've been through enough of these tonight, but look at my other comments on similar sources to see my problems with them. All too often they are
226.
by dbingham 4y ago
Gladly, although, with the caveat that science works in the aggregate so any individual paper should be treated with skepticism and that I have no idea what quality of journals these are coming from because the open access literature is cur
227.
by dbingham 4y ago
The root comment had "stop eating eggs, honey, and fish" before "take public transportation". The comment above mine includes eating fake cheese. Come on, it's pretty clear what they're driving at. Also, nowher
228.
by dbingham 4y ago
Diet is also one of the most personal things to ask people to change, deeply tied in with their health, habits, cultures, and religion. If you ask them to do something that crosses some of those lines, you will have exactly the opposite eff
229.
by dbingham 4y ago
I honestly have no idea. I don't think I know nearly enough about GPT3 to hazard a guess. I could imagine using natural language processing as part of looking at generating an automated Q&A algorithm or attempting to automate lite
230.
by dbingham 4y ago
Yes, agreed, reduction of meat consumption does need to happen. But saying "we should reduce meat consumption and ensure the meat produced is produced through these systems" is very different from putting it at the top of the lis
231.
by dbingham 4y ago
Yea, I do agree that we need to reduce meat consumption and focus on sustainably grazed operations for the meat that is consumed. But that's not the same as putting it on top of the list. Ever since Cowspiracy came out (which has been
232.
by dbingham 4y ago
That source is primarily examining conventional feedlot approaches. > An all grass cow-calf – to – finish operation was included as a minor component in the eastern and northwestern regions They examined a single all grass finished opera
233.
by dbingham 4y ago
Cheers! Would love to chat!
234.
by dbingham 4y ago
I agree that following environmental intuitions is self-defeating, but so is chasing red herrings. And this is exactly why I'm trying to build something that will allow us all to make these analysis on primary sources, not secondary o
235.
by dbingham 4y ago
Source please. There's currently a propaganda war between multiple powerful lobbies - the animal rights lobby, the meat producers, conventional ag producers, and more - which means there is a ton of misinformation flying around about
236.
by dbingham 4y ago
a) Because that's not true. The numbers don't actually work out that way. Transportation and heating are most American's biggest carbon contribution. Agriculture is down a ways. b) Because there is evidence that meat produc
237.
by dbingham 4y ago
If you live in the US, your order is wrong. 1. Walk or bike. 1a. If you can't do the above, use public transport. 1b. If you can't do that, consider moving to a city where you can do all of the above (if you can afford it). If yo
238.
by dbingham 4y ago
This is what happens when you optimize for only a single variable. And the end result won't be what you want it to be. It doesn't do us any good to stop climate change if the ecosystem still collapses out from under us. Creating
239.
by dbingham 4y ago
There's a line though. It's called the paradox of intolerance. If we are tolerant of intolerance, then we risk intolerance winning. So we need to be tolerant of different ways of thinking - EXCEPT - for those ways of thinking th
240.
by dbingham 4y ago
There is so much that could be said here... but a company forcing workers to work overtime is both a) run of the mill in terms of history and b) still reprehensible. Strikes always have been of grey legality, because the law has always been

More ›