Dogyote

@Dogyote@slrpnk.net

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is there a way out?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  True, but I feel like abuse would be fairly obvious and grant panels would know if someone is gaming the system. The panels, at least in my former field, are composed mostly of people who know who’s doing what in their field. If they saw a high citation count they would know if that was legitimate. If anything, faking citations would be shameful and embarrassing for most people.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is there a way out?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Your peers would know and they’d think you’re pathetic. There’d be nothing to gain.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is there a way out?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I think so. Journals are only in use today because that’s how scientific reporting was done before the internet. They’re still around because institutions and academics need some way of keeping score. What’s the point of it all if you can’t say you’re better than someone else?

  Journals could be replaced with something like Wikipedia, but more sophisticated and editing would be a highly controlled process that requires reproducible data and peer review.

  Score could be kept with citations. You’d be required to list the work you built on, as we do today, and the authors would receive credit. No citation would be worth more than another. If you published something useful for a particular field or made a major discovery that opened a new field, then your citation count would reflect it.

  Perhaps competing labs could both receive citation credit if their results essentially showed the same thing. If nobody could scoop anyone else’s work, then cooperation may be encouraged over competition.

  The entire wiki would be a public good, funded by governments across the world, free for all to read and for those with the relevant credentials to publicly comment on.

  Negative results could also be published. “We had this hypothesis, we tried this, it didn’t work out.” It’d probably save time and these works could be cited as well. Imagine making a very important mistake that saves everyone time and effort and being rewarded for it.

  I also feel like there is opportunity here to expand a particular field’s community. Since the wiki would be more free and open, academic silos may have more metaphorical doors, allowing more cross-field dialog.

  I could go on, but I think the tools we need already exist, but we’re not using them because… tradition. It would be easier, more efficient, and flexible to use some kind of wiki structure than what’s currently happening.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨a strong beak, of course⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Okay, how then would you generalize this trait? We would expect an intelligent species to be social to some degree? It’s hard to imagine how a species could evolve the capacity to achieve technological advances without cooperation between individuals.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨a strong beak, of course⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  A beak falls under “some kind of appendage”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨a strong beak, of course⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah… no, I don’t think that can evolve naturally

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨a strong beak, of course⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I understand the sentiment, but there must be some number of common attributes all advanced intelligent species across the universe have. Tool use, for example, would require that the organism have some kind of appendage that can manipulate things.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Let's discuss: Super Mario⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That makes a lot of sense. Katamari Damacy is also an excellent game with such a bizarre story. I’m guess I’m a fan of absurdity.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Let's discuss: Super Mario⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  My favorite game in the series was Super Mario 3. I first played it on the SNES when it was part of the Super Mario All Stars cartridge. I really liked the levels, especially the variety of landscapes and the secrets you could find if you had the right powerup.

  Super Mario World is just as good imo. Everything I liked about 3 and more, plus the star road levels, that was a good game.

  The most recent game I loved was Yoshi’s Wooly World on the WiiU. Excellent art style and super fun levels, especially the unlockable bonus levels.

  Oh and let’s not forget Legend of the Seven Stars. That was a fun and bizarre story.

  That being said, does anyone else think the Mario universe is just fucking weird? How did the creators come up with Italian plumbers who can jump really high saving a Princess from an oversized turtle in a fantasy land with walking mushrooms? Who thought that was a good idea? What inspired them? I think the only reason it became popular was because Super Mario on the NES was one of the first decent games, and most players were kids who didn’t care about the game’s universe and narrative beyond saving the princess.

  If Mario wasn’t the first popular platformer in the 80s and was instead introduced today, nobody would take it seriously. Since we all grew up with Mario, it’s a thing we accept as is. Of course high jumping Italian plumbers discovered the mushroom kingdom and rescued their princess from Bowser, again and again and again. Of course little dudes with mushroom heads are ruled by a blond haired human. Of course giant pipes are a normal mode of transit. Of course goombas and koopa troopas are the baddies.

  Seriously, how did this universe come about?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Has google stopped working for finding anything?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  duckduckgo has been working well imo

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"We Took a 100+ Hour Greyhound From Boston to Seattle"⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Inflation was caused by a combination of supply chain disruptions (mostly this) and corporate profiteering (less this). It had little to nothing to do with government actions. Read some nonpartisan literature on the topic before you come back.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"We Took a 100+ Hour Greyhound From Boston to Seattle"⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Wow what an excellent retort, I must now go back and reconsider my entire belief system and everything I’ve ever learned /s. But on a more serious note, money does practically grow on trees when viewed from the government’s perspective.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"We Took a 100+ Hour Greyhound From Boston to Seattle"⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Even if the USA was to start a massive federal level HSR program tomorrow, it would likely be several disconnected networks which may never connect across the Rockies.

  So what? You gotta start somewhere

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"We Took a 100+ Hour Greyhound From Boston to Seattle"⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  The “it’s not economical” argument is used very often for numerous topics and it always begs the question: not economical compared to what? Is the purportedly more economical choice accounting for every externality it creates? Is it only economical because it already exists? Are there reasons we should stop doing the economical option? Lastly, what unaccounted for benefits might materialize if the uneconomical choice was pursued anyway?

  So in this particular situation, we’re comparing the costs of building and operating high speed rail lines in the US to maintaining highways, hundreds of thousands of vehicles, airports, and planes. We should also account for the externalities created by using this infrastructure, so a shitload of carbon emissions plus the negatives of car culture and flying is just an awful experience.

  We should also consider what may happen if high speed rail was built anyway. I bet there would be so much more medium distance travel, people would be going on day trips to cities they wouldn’t have considered before. Previously unknown and forgotten areas of the country may be revitalized. Who knows what cool stuff could happen.

  Anyway, it really sucks when people use the “iT,s nOt eCoNoMiCaL” argument because it’s probably not true when everything is taken into account.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Mike McMahan Calls On Fans To Help Keep ‘Star Trek: Lower Decks’ From Facing The Same Fate As ‘Prodigy’⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  To those complaining about streaming services, I’ve been using free alternative streaming websites for years and haven’t had an issue.