This tracks. 47.2 was… the worst.
2 Likes
I’m at 46.8, and if it goes downhill from here… fuck.
3 Likes
It gets better.
3 Likes
4 Likes
5 Likes
Funny how highly reactive toxic elements (that become, through radioactive decay, a stew of other highly reactive and toxic elements) might not be containable.
5 Likes
8 Likes
WTF? Are they trying to kill off their fans?
4 Likes
I find that interesting … but I also wonder why we don’t really do the same life cycle analysis on coal and oil. Living near Louisiana’s cancer alley, I did some back-of-the envelope calculations, and oil and coal fatalities in the districts that comprise cancer valley alone far outstrip deaths due to nuclear.
Ideally, we’d mostly switch tosolar, wind, geothermal, and wave energy. But the scrutiny still seems really lopsided in a way that skews the discussion toward acceptance of today’s status quo.
3 Likes
5 Likes
6 Likes
4 Likes
What we need is coal-powered solar cells!
4 Likes
Carbon fuel cells? Oh fuck me.
1 Like
2 Likes
I checked a cached version, and yeah, the page is explicitly tied to the Discovery Institute. It takes a paper on temporal variables in Bell’s theorem and applies the classics: supposing observation is some distinctly human ability, supposing entanglement means sending information, and then since that entanglement can be with the future that means our reality is being shaped by something beyond the universe! Deep stuff. It really shows that the author got his degree from one of the best private Christian universities in all Texas.
The site invites me to continue reading about “Iran conflict shows why the US needs autonomous lethal AI weapons”, so it looks like they apply the same level of careful consideration to practical matters too. I think too much else is going wrong to expect a real chance at dying from bigoted fundamentalist murderbots, but it’s nice they aren’t giving up on the possibility!
5 Likes
I am … very, very close to new publishing with men again. At the present, I have:
-
One man holding up a manuscript because he “doesn’t like writing”
-
Had to put out fires all day yesterday because my collaborator secretly brought on another collaborator on a manuscript and proceeded to tell him where none of the project code, data or checklists were, resulting in the new guy running 128 hours of completely incorrect, and superfluous for our paper analyses. One of these individuals is the winner of some of the biggest prizes in sciences.
-
Two cannot organize teaching and research and have stalled soon-to-be due manuscripts.
In the time since these three collaborations started (about two years), I’ve submitted six female-majority MSes. For none of them was code structure a problem. We can look at documentation and reproduce what others did. Data are documented. Deadlines are clear.
These aren’t even my worst collaborations of the past decade.
What the fuck has been going on for the history of science. I’m having a real crisis of faith watching how my male colleagues run their labs.
Enter: #PruittGate. I have so much doubt right now. I’m going to be drafting new reproducibility guidelines for collaborations.
5 Likes
Gad. I looked at #pruitgate, and looked at pruit’s publications. He’s an author on 163 papers. I can’t figure out how someone can be so productive (well, not really). Over my career I published about 35 papers. But I wrote most of them, because I’m not much of a collaborator. Only the last project I was on did I collaborate with a bunch of people, mainly due to the guy who’d come up with the plan to begin with being good at that
Good luck with the collaborations.
3 Likes
He’s been publishing about 6 years longer than I, but has 10x more publications published or in press.
That’s both surprising and not. He works in a sexy system - spiders that are social. So the vast majority of observations he makes are publishable, even if it’s just observing a colony for a season. A decent number of his pubs are in fine, but not amazing, journals. And that’s good! We want those observations out there. Unless they are fraudulent, of course.
The other thing is that he seems to have demanded authorship for data quite a bit. This isn’t overly common in my field, where data is often harvested from databases. I work in a theoretical field where both the data, and how the researcher used it, are important. But in fields that are less … abstracted? from the data, adding the data collector to the paper is common. Most studies collect more variables than need to be analyzed for the particular paper. So “Can I have this unpublished column of your data to study how human habitation affects spider sociality?” would be reasonable to ask in exchange for authorship. A good number of pubs seem to come from that. And I’ve seen the fall out of that on Twitter: people I know to be good scientists having their work questioned because they worked with this fool.
That’s the really bothersome thing here. There’s no mechanism to undo the harm he has done to early career collaborators.
I work in a field where I’m expected to propose, implement, and validate theoretical advances in every paper. So I publish fewer papers, but they tend to be longer and more involved. I had four manuscripts accepted last week, and the revisions alone might kill me. I don’t even know how the Pruitts of the world would cope with my reviewer comments. Make up a formula? Fake a validation?
6 Likes