TheTechnician27
@TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
- Submitted 23 hours ago to videos@lemmy.world | 0 comments
- Comment on Requesting to moderate /c/comicstrips 1 day ago:
I’d be very happy to have help.
- Submitted 1 day ago to support@lemmy.world | 7 comments
- Comment on I've been waiting for this for a long time. 1 day ago:
Maybe there is a Hell, OP. (Reminded me to wishlist it on GOG, though.)
- Comment on 4 days ago:
Well no shit your order isn’t processing. You’re trying to order a holy pizza on an unholy operating system. Here’s your fix.
- Comment on People Who Love Corporate BS Are Bad at Their Jobs, New Cornell Research Confirms 4 days ago:
The article isn’t citing other studies in the traditional sense of a meta-analysis (which maybe you didn’t mean). It’s four studies conducted by the author whose results are self-contained within this paper and effectively function as a pipeline: study 3 relies on the results from study 2 relies on study 1.
I didn’t at a glance see study 4 in the preprint, but maybe that’s only in the official print version. I plan to read the methodology in full later.
- Comment on People Who Love Corporate BS Are Bad at Their Jobs, New Cornell Research Confirms 4 days ago:
- I hate when people say things like “research confirms”. That’s not how this kind of science works.
- They link to ResearchGate, which is fine enough since it has a full download of a pre-print, but here’s the original closed-access article’s page for those who do have institutional access.
- I categorically do not trust a business magazine like Inc. as a secondary source on sociological scientific literature. The author, Jessica Stillman, is listed as the source of the “Expert Opinion”, but if you look at her bio and even her website, she has zero expertise to be evaluating this. It’s fine to write an opinion; it’s not fine to misleadingly label someone as an “expert”.
The thesis of the study as stated in the abstract (of the preprint; I’m too lazy to access through my institution right now) is as follows:
Here, results from four studies (total N = 1018) report the construction and validation of the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR), a novel measure of individual differences in susceptibility to corporate bullshit.[*] Results show that corporate bullshit receptivity is distinct from a general affinity for corporate speech, negatively associated with measures of analytic thinking, and positively related with other bullshit-related constructs in theoretically-consistent ways. Importantly, corporate bullshit receptivity is positively associated with several workplace perception variables and is a robust negative predictor of work-related decision-making. Overall, the findings establish the CBSR as a valid and reliable tool to aid researchers and practitioners in examining the causes, correlates, and consequences of receptivity to bullshit in organizations.
* Defined as “semantically empty and often confusing style of communication in organizational contexts that leverages abstruse corporate buzzwords and jargon in a functionally misleading way”
I encourage people to read the study('s preprint or print edition) and evaluate its methodology instead of read a headline, think “Yeah, that conforms to my existing biases”, and walk away feeling smug. I’m not remarking on the quality of the study itself, as I’m reading the methodology later when I have time.
- Comment on Where can I ask less stupid questions? 6 days ago:
Not only that, but sorting by ‘New’ in Lemmy is a viable strategy for finding worthwhile material, so I assume at least some people do (and I could stand to more often).
On Reddit, you’re probably either doing that in a specific subreddit or searching for a gold nugget in a pile of manure because you have nothing better to do.
- Comment on The other spectrum 6 days ago:
If you’re reading lines while doing lines, you may be an ambivert.
- Comment on omg hes just like me 1 week ago:
Bit of clarification: Xenacoelomorpha is the phylum that the genus Xenoturbella is under.
Someone left a tag at the top of the Xenacoelomorpha article advocating a rewrite, which I could probably quickly investigate right now (or even just check WoRMS) if I weren’t currently a lazy lump of dead weight. Without assessing the tag’s merits, I’d at least advise treading lightly as a heuristic.
- Comment on Replication crisis, my arse 1 week ago:
That’s the logic I was avoiding, because although it’s heuristically likely in real life that there’s only one culprit – and that you could get Bowl 9 with ingredients a, b, c, d, e, f, and g to show it’s definitely h or i if you don’t get sick – there’s also a chance you have diarrhea on that Bowl 9 and gain very little information. There’s no conclusiveness to the variable isolation, so it’s not sound from an information theoretic perspective.
Actually, if you assume a comically unlikely worst-case scenario where all of the ingredients cause diarrhea, that sort of recursive algorithm might be the most amount of diarrhea you can get while still gaining information on each bowl.
- Comment on Looks like meat's back on the menu! 1 week ago:
Put the cancerous mass in the meat grinder and save 20¢ on dinner.
- Comment on Replication crisis, my arse 1 week ago:
Oh, no, you phrased it fine; I read 8 bowls and 8 bouts multiple times and somehow still misinterpreted the experiment. It was only after I wrote down and submitted an example setup that I snapped out of my own illiteracy.
- Comment on Replication crisis, my arse 1 week ago:
They said they got diarrhea 8 times over 8 bowls, but they never said how many ingredients they used.
Assume nine ingredients: a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i
Bowl 1: a + b + c + d + e + f + g + h + i: Diarrhea Bowl 2: a: No diarrhea Bowl 3: b: No diarrhea Bowl 4: c: No diarrhea Bowl 5: d: No diarrhea Bowl 6: e: No diarrhea Bowl 7: f: No diarrhea Bowl 8: g: No diarrhea Bowl 9: The one the OP is referring to, which could have h, i, or h + i
That’s a perfectly feasible if disgusting way to have a bowl from a poke truck if you’re doing it solely for an experiment. And that’s just one setup; there are more convoluted ones you could do that have fewer ingredients but mixed together so your bowls aren’t just one combination. I just chose the counterexample that’s easiest to construct mathematically.
- Comment on Replication crisis, my arse 1 week ago:
We’ll take them at their word that they’ve truly narrowed the variables to tuna and house sauce (i.e. they’ve eaten a meal consisting of only tuna and house sauce and gotten sick, but everything else has been properly eliminated), and thus the only logical options are T, HS, or T+HS.
- Comment on Replication crisis, my arse 1 week ago:
Flawed assumption. It could be both. You’ll need to eat there at least two more times to find out, assuming each trial yields 100% certainty.
- Comment on WHERE THE FUCK IS THE CURSOR? 1 week ago:
macOS also has this feature under the name “Shake mouse pointer to locate”.
- Comment on this is what I mean when I say fragging btw 1 week ago:
- Comment on Bussin 1 week ago:
Mythbusters cast reunion to test this tier list:
- Jamie tries to bust a myth.
- Tory tries to bust a nut.
- Grant (RIP, king) tries to bust a ghost.
- Adam tries to bust his balls.
- Kari tries to bust a union.
- Comment on Live image of Trump negotiations with Iran 1 week ago:
“Ayyyy, relax, guy!”
- Comment on Get stuffed, Millhouse 1 week ago:
Cards on the table: he looked like a low-rent Replay Mode – who makes fine-enough, seemingly hand-scripted video essays with mildly clickbaity titles about CoD multiplayer. They’re junk food for your brain, but they’re harmless.
- Comment on I left YouTube two years ago. Time to come back. [Tom Scott; 1:40] 1 week ago:
You got lucky. An Hbomb false alarm is a war crime in 143 countries.
- Comment on I left YouTube two years ago. Time to come back. [Tom Scott; 1:40] 1 week ago:
No, wait, he really is. The first 80 minutes of his next video, about Adobe, has been available on his Patreon since November 13, 2025.
- Comment on Get stuffed, Millhouse 1 week ago:
In another life, I think this kid would be holding a $30 microphone, staring into his Galaxy A56 camera, and reading a low-quality, half-generated YouTube video essay script about why Call of Duty peaked with Black Ops.
- Comment on A new market for tobacco companies 1 week ago:
Change da world
My final message
- Comment on hey there, hot stuff 1 week ago:
The purpose of life is to take entropy and push it somewhere else.
- Comment on Some of you had healthy childhoods... 1 week ago:
Well no shit he never came back. He couldn’t find his way home because he couldn’t see because you weren’t pointing the flashlight in the right spot!
- Comment on I left YouTube two years ago. Time to come back. [Tom Scott; 1:40] 1 week ago:
No? He’s just in the location where he’s doing commentary now, and he or his editors added a red rectangle (the color of his old shirt he always wore) but cut it off before it intersects his torso. Then they added text with a dropshadow reading “It’s been a while.”
- Comment on I left YouTube two years ago. Time to come back. [Tom Scott; 1:40] 1 week ago:
What
- Comment on Just shave it bro 1 week ago:
Man, I dunno. Besides the little tuft up top, this looks kind of badass. Like an older, good-hearted biker, but you definitely don’t want to fuck with him.
He doesn’t look bald enough to be a Tsavo lion. Wonder if there’s a testosterone imbalance. All just speculation; no clue.