amateurcrastinator

joined 8 months ago

Thank you for the book recommendation! I just bought it. Light reading for the holidays

[–] amateurcrastinator@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Sorry! I misunderstood your reply

[–] amateurcrastinator@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Wtf does that mean

[–] amateurcrastinator@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago (6 children)

This problem could be solved if funding was also awarded to projects that can verify important results like this. Effectively allow scientists to verify the results thoroughly. This means to redo the entire study! Peer review is there to catch blatant lapses in logic and basic science. But in order to see if those results are as they say you have to redo it.

There is a lot of trust between scientists that they will act morally and truthfully but these days when funding is scarce and pressure is high some will resort to all sorts of shortcuts. The most used is over inflated goals to get the funding. That is benign enough. Others will tweak the results to get ahead and claim their place in front of the others and hope to fix the problem down the line.

Funding doesn't allow repeat studies, studies with ideas too close to what has been done before etc. Also the time allotted is too short. 3 years is not enough to go from zero to finished idea ready for the market, yet that's the aim most of the time. How on earth do people think anyone will have the time and brain space to verify what others have done and force them to retract it?

I can see how people can start to be skeptical of science but the truth of the matter is that science should be funded without the expectation of profitability in the short term. People should demand better funding for schools and research. And then ask that all science of held to the highest standard at all times! Having cheap fast science to the highest standard doesn't work! If you don't believe me have a look at the titan submersible to get an idea. We wouldn't be here posting messages on this platform if science was funded the same 80 years ago.

I think that is going too far and it will trigger a strongly worded letter

Ah yes! The important issues are discussed!

No culture was involved in either case! It is fucked all the way

You see, that's not a problem because that burden is not on the ones causing these problems! So this doesn't affect the profit line moving up! On the contrary, it creates opportunities for more profit!

So all is fine people!

Hey this is a perfect job for ai! Gpt that shit and replace the interpreter!

[–] amateurcrastinator@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago (3 children)

How many slams is it this year? How many more to a full dunk? By now surely they must have learned their lesson!

[–] amateurcrastinator@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

What's your point?

Also that's an awesome find!

view more: next ›