archonet

wouldn't you like to know

keep me in the screenshot unless you want your subscriber base to know this guy from the past thinks you suck.

also, we're so sorry. not all of us, but some of us.

but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.

...

you know, there is a difference between "getting published in Nature" and "submitting your work to Nature". It's subtle, perhaps: one involves being published in the journal. For the world to see and scrutinize.

I bet they get lots of letters that they do, indeed, find aren't well substantiated enough to publish.

Also, one field. Lmao.

Also, please tell me why you made your first comment, I'm genuinely curious. Did you read about this somewhere? Where, if you recall?

it's not about a takedown, really, I'm not trying to be mean (not especially hard, anyways), I just want to understand what Nature, or science as a whole, did to piss them off enough to make shit up about it. Or if they're just having a bad day they oughta just say so.

that sounds like the dumbest horseshit I've ever heard of, namely because even if it were true, you'd still be wrong for a different reason: an educational journal is built on its reputation.

let's assume -- even for a brief moment -- you are, in fact, 100% correct with this claim.

You're almost definitely not, but hey, let's assume.

scientists are all about being right, so much so that they loathe their own frauds (watch some BobbyBroccoli documentaries if you don't believe me), and they also take extreme pleasure in disproving each other. sometimes, good science is in trying to disprove what some other guy or some other team said because "I want to be right/I want that fucker I hate to be wrong (we're all petty humans, even scientists)/I want us to understand the world better, and we need to know if this is in fact as they claim". Peer review is ingrained in their doctrine, that's what good science is. You think if someone, a person with enemies, competition, and friends alike, got their paper in one of the most prestigious educational journals in the world, someone, somewhere wouldn't be going "nuh-uh! I bet I can prove otherwise!"? And at that point it's two scholars betting their career dick to swing around that they're right and the other guy's wrong, unless of course peer review actually means that prestigious journals generally don't publish horseshit.

in short: your claim is not only wrong, it is... a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works as a concept, I feel? Maybe not always in practice -- there's always politics sticking their dick into the mix to muddy the waters -- but that's part of what these journals pay and charge for. Prestigious peers. To review papers.

now, are they fair prices for knowledge that helps us all is another debate, but suffice to say: going "fuck you I'm gonna find out if you're wrong" is literally part of the job.

Are you just, like... not that bright? Or is this just a transient phase, a hard night for you?

Don't forget walks.

That dog doesn't "get taken" for a walk, it'll take you for a walk. Or a drag.

And that any evidence of the zombie eating brains is simply Western propaganda.

life clings to me like a disease

fortunately, I plan on having a massive heart attack in my late 40s/early 50s, just before the wars over clean water and food start. And they told me I didn't know how to plan for the future.

ah, so now instead of China spying on TikTok users, it will be Russia spying on TikTok users.

"no guys it's totally not an echo chamber, we just ban and/or relentlessly attempt to troll anyone with a differing opinion than ours!"

I'd say it's an impressive level of cognitive dissonance, but then, you'd already have to have that to believe China is a socialist utopia. Really it's just Tuesday for them.