Sure it isn’t. Let’s review this when the state does the same thing lol.

Is this why we should not delegate the control of hate speech to the state, because it will always blow up in our faces?

This might be out of context for the article, but once we are in /c/technology get this: GIMP is a slur, and their slogan during startup is “we glitch because we twitch” which makes me want to kick them in the nuts every time I use the fucking software.

Aah… Boomer bait, we get that a lot :s

As for this valid focus on critical mass of users, perhaps a linked tags approach is better than a multiple-communities structure, until specific tags gain enough friction to become communities. Just thinking.

All this is speculative of course, but those domains you listed are vanity domains in lucrative markets. I call them vanity domains, because it can easily set you back 3-4 figures to get a domain like me.blog , let alone yourname.cars which is quite desirable if you sell cars. As with everything else, domain prices are simply subject to the laws of supply and demand.

Regarding .io , compared to average country code domains, such as .de for example, that tend to be quite modestly priced, .io has seen substantial increase in the past 5 or so years, transformed from a geeky exoticism to a symbol of AI-hype tech companies.

At least from my perspective.

organised system of reproduction

Yes, that would be great. People put so much stock in peer review because there is the myth that every statement undergoes under a rigorous process of verification in multiple laboratories. The reality is, as you said, there is a culture of active discouragement of reproduction and the pushing of novel results.

Not to mention that to foster reproductions, researchers should be trained into a culture of replication and collective metanalyses. As it is now, reproductions are less than an afterthought for the vast majority of researchers, and virtually none knows how to handle multiple replicatory studies instead of p-hacking.

This trick should come in handy pal

12ft.io/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/10/sam-altman-mythmaking/680152/

Perhaps we could benefit from sth like MetaCritic for science.

As far as I know the peer reviewers are in most cases now selected by the editor, they self-select to respond, are not paid for their work, and the process for alarmingly many journals is not even blind. I always thought that this makes the process vulnerable to network effects in the field, since people are obliged to a certain etiquette when commenting on established figures in their own field. So yes, I get where you are coming from, but similar to the scientific method, peer review is also great to describe in theory, in practice it would require much more precise protocols, like Web protocols I might say. I really don’t want to be a pessimist about science in the current political climate, but if we want these great ideals (Scientific method, Peer Reviewed evidence) we will have to abandon the existing situation as soon as possible.

This is not just about the pressure put on academics to publish, but it is a whole systemic rot, that is not even remotely living up to the “peer reviewed evidence” myth.

The whole idea of an intermediary authority for scientific publishing is a scam, and it corrupts people who want/need to be in the pyramid. The whole thing is ill-conceived, needs to be abolished, and a new thing should be put in its place. At some point someone said, “I can ditch all this and just publish research on my blog, then people will criticize and build upon that”. No publisher, no paywall, no problem. If we follow this example, all of these issues can disappear overnight. But the vast majority of professionals value their career more than anything else, including our tantamount tenets of what science communication should look like.

You might object that “intermediary authorities” and “peer review” are essential to prevent disinformation and conspiracy theories. Well, we are past this point aren’t we? Did this system prevent conspiracy theories and disinformation, hoaxes, and fraudsters this far? No, so how exactly will it prevent all of these terrible things in the future? If anything, building arguments in the open without paywalls might deter at least some of the conspiracy theorists that brandish paywalls as further evidence of cover-ups and secrecy, and ditching the horrible jargon and high-brow style might actually help the common sense of scientific arguments just shine, and combat the rising anti-intellectualism of right-wing conspiracy theorists.

Like, if you explain Elsevier’s etc business model to any lay person (Pay me money so that I let you publish to my super-selective journal and feed your vanity) they have the most funny reactions, because to anyone who is not conditioned to this absurdity, it just sounds like a pyramid scheme.

Fair enough.

I see. Looks like it could keep things tidy. I will try to stick to this solution then.

“You can apply for benefits for yourself, your spouse, or your children.”

“You can apply for benefits for yourself, your spouse, and your children.”

No wonder you failed. The critical comparison would be ‘and/or’ = ‘or’, not ‘and’=‘or’ .

Wow did you like …parse the rest of the argument?

See my other comment, Wikipedia says the axes are as I said.

Edit: And illustrating time as the vertical axis, it is wildly uncommon. So this ‘framing’ rebuttal is like …hysterical.

I see, so you need way more knowledge to get a small increase in reward, hence the steepness. Point taken.

Edit: Wikipedia though

A learning curve is a graphical representation of the relationship between how proficient people are at a task and the amount of experience they have. Proficiency (measured on the vertical axis) usually increases with increased experience (the horizontal axis), that is to say, the more someone, groups, companies or industries perform a task, the better their performance at the task.[1]

The common expression “a steep learning curve” is a misnomer suggesting that an activity is difficult to learn and that expending much effort does not increase proficiency by much, although a learning curve with a steep start actually represents rapid progress.[2][3]

Nice premise, but I don’t think there are valid examples of everyday use of ‘and/or’ where it could not be interchangeable with just or. Like, formal logic aside.

you fuckin toad, do better next time, anyway here’s my insurance information

This de-escalated kinda uneventfully