Liz
@Liz@midwest.social
- Comment on Motivation 1 hour ago:
You get a dagger in Europe, but their PhD programs are generally shorter and less difficult, so you need the knife to get back to parity with American PhDs. (Personally I think the entire concept is borderline a scam, but whatever.)
- Comment on This used book that I bought for 12£ on the internet was apparently previously bought from Oxfam for 1.99£ 1 day ago:
Yeah I actually hear they’re a shit company, but the idea that they’re somehow pulling one over on the people who donate is fucking rich.
- Comment on This used book that I bought for 12£ on the internet was apparently previously bought from Oxfam for 1.99£ 1 day ago:
Like I’m gonna fucking spend my time trying to sell my old t-shirts for $2.
- Comment on Anon has a realization 1 week ago:
I miss the old games that didn’t make winning inevitable.
- Comment on We can do all three things at once 1 week ago:
No worries, it was a good link. I was under the impression that the main obstacle to breeder reactors was political.
- Comment on That's Life 1 week ago:
Well he stole that money and immediately burned it, but still, he’s got to have money to fund his shenanigans.
- Comment on Dell responds to return-to-office resistance with VPN, badge tracking 1 week ago:
COVID extremely didn’t end. It’s still here and still fucking people up long term. We all just decided that either 1) we didn’t care or 2) the reduced risk associated with being vaccinated was good enough.
- Comment on PSA: Don't eat cicadas if you're allergic to shellfish... or at all 1 week ago:
They are not. Bugs taste like bugs.
- Comment on We can do all three things at once 1 week ago:
That link you shared does a much better job of not implying the reader is an idiot.
- Comment on Anon ends racism 1 week ago:
I mean, if anything this is just more racism, but I’m happy anon is happy.
- Comment on Boring ass planet 1 week ago:
As it should be! Big boy is round!
- Comment on Boring ass planet 1 week ago:
My personal definition of planet:
- big enough to be spherical
- has never been big enough to cause fusion
- Comment on Anon hates aluminum 1 week ago:
Yeah that’s true, metal to metal contacts can have some fun interactions.
- Comment on Anon hates aluminum 1 week ago:
Yeah I imagine you would. Salty water loves to eat things up.
- Comment on Anon hates aluminum 1 week ago:
The answer to the question is preceded by the phrase. Yeah, it was tricky grammar but I didn’t feel like trying to come up with a more clear phrasing.
Anyway, as in “Well, that depends on the oxidation state. Aqueous +2 would give you…”
- Comment on Anon hates aluminum 1 week ago:
You can get loads of pretty uranium colors in solution. I love me some chemistry, where the answer to the question “what color is it?” is preceded by “well it depends on the oxidation state…”
- Comment on Anon hates aluminum 1 week ago:
It depends on what’s in the warehouse. The only place I’ve seen significant aluminum corrosion was inside a vac frame hood with years of corrosive fumes in it. But, I’m sure there’s a middle ground. Aluminum isn’t inert, but it’s better than raw iron at resisting corrosion.
- Comment on Anon hates aluminum 1 week ago:
So a gold mine is both literal and figurative, eh?
- Comment on Anon hates aluminum 1 week ago:
We’re giving Twitter the name change respect Elon would give to any other thing or person that changed its name.
- Comment on Anon hates aluminum 1 week ago:
Don’t you be lying up in this thread! Uranium is very boring looking. Just another grey metal.
- Comment on Anon hates aluminum 1 week ago:
Yeah but like, in order to get significant amounts of it you gotta be in a relatively harsh environment.
- Comment on Anon hates aluminum 1 week ago:
It’s very annoying that gold is so expensive. Much less toxic and still has loads of great properties. It’s just, you know, expensive.
- Comment on Academic Rizzlers 2 weeks ago:
Yeah this kind of casual title is very rare, and it’s always just a small addition to an otherwise straightforward title. No one would allow for a purely cheeky title and no author would want one anyway. The first thing people use to judge the relevance of your paper is the title. If it’s not immediately obvious what it’s about, they’re not going to look further. Immediately obvious for someone in a related field, anyway.
- Comment on Academic Rizzlers 2 weeks ago:
Some people think repping their credentials is conceited. Independent of that, I’m on team do-what-you-want-it’s-your-title-just-make-sure-it’s-descriptive-so-the-reader-still-knows-what-the-article-is-about.
- Comment on We can do all three things at once 2 weeks ago:
Re: Remaining fuel.
If we built breeder reactors we could use the spent waste fuel to power the entire US for 1000 years. That runs into plutonium existence problems, but it’s a political problem, not a resource problem.
However, I still agree with what you’ve said. We should limit our nuclear footprint to key isotope production, but we really shouldn’t be doing that until we’ve gone full carbon neutral.
- Comment on Calculus made easy 2 weeks ago:
okkayyy…let’s just stick to the process and wait for this whole thing to blow over
This is such a classic engineer brain solution to the problem. It just warms my heart.
- Comment on Checks out to me. 2 weeks ago:
Nope! Just some technical stuff. Maybe it’s one of of those things where there’s not technically an enforcement mechanism. I read all about how to start a draft and turn it into a full article, which includes submitting it for review. Maybe you can just decide not to do that.
- Comment on I mean have they seen our stipends 2 weeks ago:
There’s a reason we have to import so many of our PhD candidates. It’s because it’s a raw fucking deal. Even in areas where pay is high for researchers, it’s still a borderline pointless gauntlet of humiliation to prove abilities you could have just gained on the job anyway.
- Comment on Checks out to me. 2 weeks ago:
I’m not talking about updating an existing article. I’m taking about publishing an entirely new page. I can and do make corrections and additions to existing articles without review. I wrote a completely new article and every time I submit it for review it comes back with a different reason for rejection. However, the most recent one was actually due to a misunderstanding on my part about acceptable sources (turns out I was being more restrictive than I needed to be), so at least it’ll be easy to implement the changes this reviewer wants to see.
- Comment on Checks out to me. 2 weeks ago:
Uh, what? As far I can tell every new draft needs to be approved before switching to the main page.