manfredo

43 ms·

361.
by manfredo 6y ago
> If your argument is that he had no choice in the matter then I'm not really arguing with you because in my world people can make choices of their own free will. To assume otherwise is a slippery slope and so I'm not intereste
362.
by manfredo 6y ago
> Why is it laughable? I have already said several times what was uncivil about it. Perhaps this was the case, but you seem to have edited many parent comments in this chain with a '-'. Unless the flagging behavior has changed
363.
by manfredo 6y ago
This was Scott's message to the readers: > There is no comments section for this post. The appropriate comments section is the feedback page of the New York Times. You may also want to email the New York Times technology editor Pui-
364.
by manfredo 6y ago
In many places, good faith sales are respected. Say someone bought a TV that "fell off a truck", but then after a year sells it to another person insisting it was legitimately acquired. The second buyer could be a legitimate owner
365.
by manfredo 6y ago
A paper being published in a journal is meant to indicate some degree of review and passing a level of oversight. Yes, there are plenty of journals that fail to do this. And every once in a while people share stories revealing just how poor
366.
by manfredo 6y ago
He's the Senate majority leader. The above comment is not correct, one senator is not holding the nation hostage. The majority of the Senate is. The Senate majority leader just happens to be one of the more senior members of the majori
367.
by manfredo 6y ago
No, journals that go as far as accepting chapters of Mein Kampf with a few terms swapped out go beyond "good faith" and into the ream of "blind faith".
368.
by manfredo 6y ago
What did I fail to address? Your argument is that peer review doesn't actually involve any sort of review capable of spotting bad research. That publications operate on blind faith, and so failure to spot bad fraudulent research is a n
369.
by manfredo 6y ago
I didn't say adversarial review. I said publishing papers from authors who explicitly disclaim that they do not have access to their own data any more. Because that's what this publication did. They asked for the data, the hoaxste
370.
by manfredo 6y ago
It's normal practice for publications to publish papers from authors who explicitly say that they don't even retain the data used to produce the paper? If that's the case what's even the point of peer review? At this poi
371.
by manfredo 6y ago
I think you're missing the series of events. The authors never submitted any false data. They claimed that this was what their research found, and when the journal asked for the actual research data the authors claimed that they had wr
372.
by manfredo 6y ago
I'm astounded that a research didn't bat an eye about someone claiming to have observed a thousand instances of dog-humping, managed to identify the genders of the dogs, as well as the sexual orientation of the owners - and to hav
373.
by manfredo 6y ago
It was accepted by Gender, Place & Culture . In fact it was not only accepted, it received an award for exemplary scholarship. Out of the 21 papers submitted [1] 9 were rejected, 7 were published, 3 were asked to revised and resubmit f
374.
by manfredo 6y ago
Good program committees don't operate on the presumption of good faith. In fact, I addressed this in my comment so I'm unsure why you're continuing to make this faulty argument. This is like a website saying that a vulnerabil
375.
by manfredo 6y ago
The whole point of peer review and publications like these is to ensure a quality of published research. If someone conducts a study and determines that a significant portion of fraudulent research is published, then this demonstrates that
376.
by manfredo 6y ago
The whole point of the experiment was to test whether the research enterprise is trustworthy. Submitting fake experiments to the paper and seeing if they get published is the experiment. It seems to me that you're rejecting the entir
377.
by manfredo 6y ago
That wasn't the actual experiment, though. The actual experiment was to test whether or not these publications were capable of detecting fake papers.
378.
by manfredo 6y ago
Is Thiel seeking to build an army of ressurected elves to destroy all life in the planet? And what did you have in mind for "if not worse"?
379.
by manfredo 6y ago
The main use case or illicit drug detection that I as aware of was detecting fraudulent pharmacies selling shitloads of legal opiods. Which primarily affects rural white people - I don't think that's part of Nixon's drug war
380.
by manfredo 6y ago
Thiel actually explained this in a talk when I worked there. It comes from Lord of the Rings which Peter Thiel is very fond of. Apparently the Palantiri aren't inherently good or bad, it's just that power's impact reflects th
381.
by manfredo 6y ago
Here's a few demos to actually see the product in action. * This is Palantir Gotham: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZug8kV28RU * This is a more generic talk. Skip to the 22:00 mark: https://www.youtube.com
382.
by manfredo 6y ago
A lot of people in this thread are raising questions about what Palantir actually does. I worked as a software developer at Palantir in 2014, so maybe I can shed some light on this though this info may not be up to date. Back then they had
383.
by manfredo 6y ago
> If I were Palantir I'd be worried about the funding from my primary customers (defense, law enforcement, ICE) in the likely coming very Democratic federal government. Why? Palantir grew to be a unicorn (not just a unicorn, but a d
384.
by manfredo 6y ago
As a company you're also competing against other companies for hires. Good candidates can get offers from multiple companies. If you're going to tell candidates to make an opportunity cost sacrifice of several weeks of work just t
385.
by manfredo 6y ago
A rather click-baity headline. The article doesn't claim that job interviews don't work so much as it claims that subjective job interviews are more subject to bias than structured job-interviews. I'd say that's true, bu
386.
by manfredo 6y ago
> Consider that natural gas used to be though of as rare and limited, so much so that its use for power production was outlawed in the US! Where are you getting this information? Natural gas has been widely extracted for much of the last
387.
by manfredo 6y ago
> And no, the cavern is not already built for you, it's produced by solution mining of an existing salt formation. This plan is to repurpose existing mines. Yes the cavern is already built for you as far as the cost estimates are co
388.
by manfredo 6y ago
> Go to https://model.energy/ and click on "Show advanced assumption settings". > Now scroll down a bit: > Battery energy capital cost: 142 Euro/kWh Hydrogen energy capital cost: 0.7 Euro/kWh &g
389.
by manfredo 6y ago
> I said the PER ENERGY CAPACITY part of hydrogen storage was cheap. And it is! It's like 200x times cheaper than the same aspect of battery storage. So if we get into a situation where the per-energy capacity costs are really impor
390.
by manfredo 6y ago
My reply was refuting your claim that hydrogen storage was cheap. Now you're going off on a tangent about short term vs. long term storage and ignoring the central point of my previous comment: the cost estimates for hydrogen storage a

More ›