Liz
@Liz@midwest.social
- Comment on They used to be all metal too. Its time for a revolution 1 day ago:
Lego would like a word with you.
- Comment on Withdrawal is going to make people go mad 4 days ago:
I want to expand on your expansion of my glib comment. While taxing the poor and working class at a higher proportional rate is obviously immoral, it’s also bad economic policy. The working class are essentially the “engine” of the economy. Their income circles back into the greater economy at a much higher rate than a rich person’s. The harder you tax them, more more you slow down the economy. While is technically true for any tax bracket, you can tax the rich much more aggressively with very little impact on the overall economy, because so much of their money is for toys.
We’re actually seeing a big problem right now, with so many billionaires they are running out of decent places to put their money that’s worth their time. We have way too many billionaires and not enough millionaires and small business owners. A billionaire will never invest in your taco truck, but the local “fairly rich” guy might. The billionaires are betting big on AI, in part, because they have no other bets they can make. We need to tax their asses way more aggressively and pump that money into micro businesses to make our economies robust.
(While I’m speaking about the US in particular, this is somewhat of a global trend.)
- Comment on I feel this way about cinnamon. 5 days ago:
I’m pretty sure it’s actually short for chili con carne, tomates, espinaca, frijoles, maíze, arroz, más frijoles, calabacín, brócoli, pimientos verdes, comino, chipotle, y pimentón ahumado.
- Comment on Withdrawal is going to make people go mad 5 days ago:
People listing Hawaii like they could meet the total US demand, even if they could scale to maximum production overnight.
Most of the corn we eat is Brazilian. Most of the corn we grow is feed corn for cows and process corn for HFCS and other processed food ingredients.
- Comment on Withdrawal is going to make people go mad 5 days ago:
That is a laughably stupid tax policy.
- Comment on Withdrawal is going to make people go mad 5 days ago:
That is a laughably stupid tax policy.
- Comment on ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 4 weeks ago:
I didn’t bother to look it up, that was just my random vague understanding. I’d trust your numbers over mine.
- Comment on This is not fine 4 weeks ago:
Bro said “maybe” on humans being the source of all this new CO2 as if you can’t just do the math on humanity’s annual CO2 output and watch the atmospheric concentration go up in direct response. They’re downright lying.
- Comment on ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 4 weeks ago:
Isn’t I the LD 50 just over a gram?
- Comment on Game Freak has been allegedly hacked, with source codes for Pokemon games reportedly leaked 4 weeks ago:
Nah, some folks got a hold of the wire frames for the sprites from the that version and the previous version and showed most were identical. Of those that weren’t, many were only slightly modified, and clearly not generated from scratch.
- Comment on ouch 5 weeks ago:
That someone better is you. Research is always like that. If you started your project with all the knowledge you gained from doing it, it would only take you two weeks, sure, but the whole point of research is gaining that knowledge and teaching it to other people.
- Comment on Cheeky 5 weeks ago:
Sure thing, here’s an example paper.
- Comment on Cheeky 5 weeks ago:
It’s not totally vestigial, it helps regulate colon bacteria. People without their appendix take longer to recover from diarrhea, which is important when bad water and spoiled food are a more regular part of your life.
- Comment on the flies 5 weeks ago:
Yes. They had a control group with only black stripes along with an unpainted group. I would have to assume they also checked the paints for potential repellents, but I only skimmed the article.
- Comment on Anon browses ancient memes 1 month ago:
For real. Dude is claiming old memes used to be creative while using leek spin as the example.
- Comment on Home Depot 1 month ago:
I really hope AI continues to have noticable failures. I have my doubts, but one can hope.
- Comment on Poggers 1 month ago:
It very strongly depends on how you’re using the word cult.
- Comment on Anon goes to dinner with coworkers 1 month ago:
Who fucking reports comments made outside of work to HR? Learn how to handle uncomfortable social situations on your own you little tattler.
- Comment on That explains it. 1 month ago:
I think there’s a difference between experiencing objectification and being objectified but not knowing.
- Comment on Launches 2 months ago:
Just launch lots of tiny bits of processed earth at them super fast. More propellant efficient and you don’t have to worry that they might have packed a parachute.
- Comment on Jet Fuel 2 months ago:
Regardless, looks like there’s a plan to get everybody off the stuff by 2030.
- Comment on Jet Fuel 2 months ago:
I thought that you can still sell new props that need leaded fuel, is that not the case?
- Comment on Jet Fuel 2 months ago:
We really need to get rid of that.
- Comment on Deficiencies 2 months ago:
Did you take their advice? I’m regrettably a person who needs more like 9 to 10 hours of sleep, which is great because I love sleeping, but terrible because I love doing stuff.
- Comment on Suddenly it all makes sense. 2 months ago:
Alternate explanation:
Hormone: Pretty much any chemical your body uses for intra-body signaling. Signaling in this case can be anything from dumping adrenaline in order to move blood preferentially to the muscles, to the production of estrogen in order to promote cell growth in certain organs.
Steroid: A particular class of compounds grouped by the existence of a particular quartet of carbon atom rings inside each of the molecular structures. They have a very wide range of roles across the tree of life. Examples include, but are not limited to: testosterone, cholesterol, ergosterol, and progesterone.
Steroid (colloquial meaning): Pretty much any performance enhancing drug, including hormones and actual steroids.
- Comment on biology subfields 2 months ago:
No it is not.
- Comment on Anon's gf is unfulfilled 2 months ago:
The male form doubles as gender neutral. Some people have tried to start using -e ending, but I’m pretty sure basically no one actually uses it.
- Comment on Peer review 2 months ago:
I think you’re placing a lot more weight on the authority of a single scientific paper than any actual scientist ever would. If you have one paper, you have one paper. If you have a series of papers all put out by the same lab… maybe there’s something there, maybe not. If other groups start publishing similar papers, okay this is sometime serious.
In some of the messier sciences, like medicine, people will publish meta-studies, where they combine results from similar, but independently published, papers and see what they can come up with using the combined data. People will also publish literature reviews, where they essentially try to summarize the state of the science in their particular little niche. To trust a single study in medicine is to hitch your horse to a wicket.
The peer review process doesn’t stop wrong papers from getting published, just obviously wrong or bad ones. I’m not entirely sure what you could even do to stop wrong papers from making into journals, since often times the problem isn’t in the published experimental design or analysis. Plus, there’s some papers that used to be right, but have become wrong as things change.
they’re apparently lower effort than a good reddit comment
They’re not, people are being flippant. People frequently complain about having to do peer reviews specifically because it’s unpaid labor. Regardless, if the paper is so wrong it would warrant a community note on Twitter, the paper would be strongly rejected. The standard for acceptance is way higher than that. Remember that it gets reviewed by fellow experts in the field. They will easily spot small errors.
Is it the best possible system? Heck if I know. It works. Moving to a different system would require everyone to recalibrate their understanding of what good science looks like. We know how to identify it under the current publication model, it would take a fair bit of time to adjust to the new one.
- Comment on Peer review 2 months ago:
A peer review really is just someone checking for glaring errors. If a paper gets published and someone had some real beef with it, best they can do is some of their own research to prove how shitty the other team was. After that, there are some journals that will publish letters where people comment on previous articles. But generally, most articles just get mildly ignored. It’s only after a pattern of corroborating evidence piles up that people will start to say that the results of a particular early study were significant.
Mind you, the details about how this consensus process works varies from field to field. Particle physics has a different culture than hydrology. But, in general, one paper is not enough to hang your hat on.
- Comment on Peer review 2 months ago:
For any scientific journal that’s worth anything, your article has to get approved by other scientists in your field before the journal will accept it. They’re mostly just looking for exactly what this post is referencing. Does it seem legit? If it passes a once-over by the other scientists, then it gets published.
This is why you should not trust any single study by itself. It’s just the results from one experiment that easily could have had a consequential error no one picked up. The results could be statistical noise. Hell, even rarely, you’ll get someone who’s been faking data. This is not to say “science is broken,” only that science has never relied on the results from a single unreplicated experiment to determine truth. If you read about scientists from the past, it’s fairly common for them to publish a landmark paper and for no one to care, or even for people to argue they’re wrong. Only with additional research do they get proved correct and we imagine that everyone immediately accepted this new paradigm shift off of one single paper.