Gaywallet

On the good side of things: It literally changed my life. I had no idea how poorly I had been sleeping, and once I did have some healing, and started getting good, consistent sleep, many of the things I struggled with just suddenly disappeared. I didn’t have the rapid mood swings. I didn’t struggle with anger. I could think more clearly, and focus on tasks. Life was truly a fundamentally different experience for me.

Interesting, thank you for sharing this.

Woah, okay yea I get sick a fair deal but now I'm wondering how much has to do with the tonsils

The 3D medium had some fantastic art. There were a lot of gimmicks in movies you'd expect, like harold and kumar go to whitecastle (not meant to be a serious movie). But there were also fantastic shots and art direction such as in tron: legacy and prometheus, where 3D provided a much deeper feel of space and made certain shots that much more emotionally resonant and beautiful.

There were a lot more misses than wins, as most directors saw it as a gimmick, but not everyone did. The folks who thought carefully about how extra dimensions would affect a shot (even when it was done in post rather than shot on 3D cameras) made some wonderful art, and it's a shame so many folks missed out on it because they weren't able to see past it as a gimmick either.

The quantity of disinformation is irrelevant if people don’t fall for it

I don't know about you, but I find it increasingly difficult to find unbiased takes and find myself spending more time digging than I previously did. Because of this I find myself increasingly mislead about things, because the real truth might be so obscured that I need to find an actual academic to parse what information is out there and separate primary source from other mislead individuals.

Not to say I don't disagree with your point, I think you make a fair one, but I do believe that the quantity of disinformation is absolutely relevant, especially in an age where not only anyone can share their misinformed belief online, but one where this is increasingly happening by malicious actors as well as AI.

Just dropping by here to remind you to treat others on this instance in good faith, even when you disagree.

This has been reported on account of the source. I'm not sure it's worth removing necessarily, and would direct people to look at @spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org comment for another source and an excellent summary.

Don't get me wrong, it's not a way to solve everything. But an authoritative body can build credibility and hold onto it. People should still be skeptical and still review, but that's a normal part of the scientific process. Knowing what's more and less credible is a normal process of research, and learning to assess credibility is important too. Peer review doesn't need to be torn down as a concept, it just needs to be taken with a healthy grain of salt, like all processes. This is part of why I mentioned how some journals are more reputable than others - it's a reflection of how often their peer review misses important things, not a reflection of how bullet-proof their science is. Everyone makes mistakes, the goal should always be to make less.

Also, to be clear, I'm talking about the post-research and pre-publish step, not the pre-research proposal step - that form of peer review can fuck right off.

Also of great importance which I should have probably highlighted in my initial post - this is really dependent on the field itself. In medicine people put in effort for that kind of review. I've peer reviewed quite a few papers and I've received really good advice from peer reviewers on some of the papers I'm on. Certainly this can happen in environments where this kind of review isn't necessary, but the institutions that exist do make it a lot easier. An open source self-hosted model would make it really hard to get an idea of how many eyes were on a particular paper, and would make keeping up with continuing education difficult.... of course unless groups of people made their career reviewing everything that emerges and putting together summaries or otherwise helping to sift through the noise.

In certain fields, at least, there are important steps these papers provide such as screening and review that are simply not feasible through as self-hosted. People who understand what the paper is about and can sniff out bullshit - be it cooked numbers, incorrect figures, improper citations, etc. are an important part of the process. Heck, even among academic papers out there, some are much lower 'quality' than others in that they are frequently bought off or have poor review processes allowing fluff and bad science to get through.

With all that being said, scihub is a thing and even paid journals are often easily pirated.

Framing it as what 'sparked complex life' is what makes it slightly clickbait-y. The circumstances which involved the creation of RNA/DNA is arguably more important when we talk about what 'sparked complex life', but it's really borderline and this is an important discovery and previous gap in knowledge so I think it's excusable here.

Kids have been doing idiotic shit to themselves since the dawn of time. Tik tok or youtube didn’t cause this.

It's not about who caused it, it's about responsibility. The responsibility for making it easy to spread, amplifying the message. Kids in your class is very different from millions of viewers. Even in grade school there's a chance an adult might see it and stop it from happening or educating the children.

Ultimately this is an issue of public health and of education. For such a huge company, a $10m fine is practically nothing, especially when they could train their own algorithm to not surface content like this. Or they could have moderation which removes potentially harmful content. Why are you going to bat for a huge company to not have responsibility for content which caused real harm?

smooth talker

One man, a bartender, avoided a fine by arguing that he was a goth and that was why he had eyebrow piercings, “turquoise hair” and wore a “black T-shirt rolled up to his chest”.

Slightly clickbait-y title, but super cool and important discovery!

I found the following particularly interesting:

They also learned that in pairings that work, both partners adapt to each other — a phenomenon that has been largely overlooked. It wasn’t just the bacteria adapting to a new environment; the host changed too, even in the early stages. “That is a fundamentally important question that people have ignored,” Richards said. “This opens the doors for real advances.”