rando895

@rando895@lemmygrad.ml

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨'vegetative electron microscopy'⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  No one said zero publishable results. Besides, to get to the stage of a publishing scientist (I mean a primary investigator) you have gone through a Bsc, Msc (maybe published, but definitely a thesis), phD (usually 1+ publications), post docs (at least 1 which may last between 6months and 5 years, and would be expected to publish), a probation period at a University/Research Institute or other organization (where you would be expected to publish).

  So if you make it through that entire process and are incapable of publishing, the entire system failed you.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨'vegetative electron microscopy'⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  That is the argument, but when those with more publications get more funding than those with better publications, the drive is to produce more.

  Don’t get me wrong, there are still good publications out there, but the incentives and pressures move the needle to the quantity side. How do you measure goodness? I dont know. But what we are doing now isn’t working, which is evidenced by, well how everything is going at the moment.

  Of course we could moralize it and say something like “ohh well scientists are just greedier and lazier than they used to be” but that is thought terminating and no solution can be found that way.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨'vegetative electron microscopy'⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  As someone within that community: it demonstrates the “publish or perish” mindset. Without enough publications it becomes impossible to get funding to do your research. Thus, the incentives are there for producing more publications and not better research.

  Unsurprisingly, encouraging greater throughput results in greater throughput. And without proper support quality suffers. For example, a large portion of research is done by underpaid graduate students.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Entropy? Never heard of it.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Its that using an extra step in the process (producing energy + CO2, then using energy to remove CO2) is going to increase entropy more than not producing CO2 in the first place.

  Economic viability is separate and sometimes related to things like this.

  Its irrelevant to the economy (in the short term at least) whether a process is efficient in terms of energy or resources. What is relevant is whether or not something can be done for either small sums of money, or sold for profits. More likely both in a capitalist style economy.

  Note that it does happen in some cases that using less energy/resources is more profitable, but the driving force, again in a capitalist style economy, is the profit.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is it worth it??⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Physicists abhor a black box. So long as it is an option, most will choose not to use AI to any great extent, and will chastise those who do.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Unholy Physics⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It is if you finesse it enough

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Slapping Chicken⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s like… 4 or 5 times the speed of sound at sea level so… There would be a bit of a boom.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Slapping Chicken⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The real question is if you slapped hard enough to raise the temperature to 74C (undergrad clearly doesn’t cook), what would the temperature of your hand be? And for the engineers: how far up your arm would you have to measure before the temperature returning to normal body temperature? And for the bio/kin/nursing/premed students: how much would need to be amputated?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"Theory" of Evolution (SMBC)⁩ ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  NP

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"Theory" of Evolution (SMBC)⁩ ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  A fact is something that happens. If you read “theory” as “model” it makes more sense.

  So evolution occurs. Our model of it is crap. Gravity exists. But Newtons model of gravity only works for human things approximately human size and speed. When it gets too big and fast we need Einstein’s model (general relativity) to explain things, if it gets too small we need quantum gravity.

  Or put differently: it is a fact that I wrote these words. If you tried to describe my words with a theory/model, and it predicted which words I would write next, then you have a decent theory/model.

  I hope this helps

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Taxonomy⁩ ⁨⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  No it’s bunch berry because it’s cuter