HexesofVexes

And here we see Professor Moonmoon about to espouse his latest theories on goodboi theory.

Scientific reproduction, as in reproduction of a study XD

Scientific reproduction, not sexual reproduction XD

So, hear me out here, there is a huge reproduction crisis out there. In theory, you could try to replicate this study without the researcher being an asshole and see if it still works out and this would be a valuable line of research that could technically get funded.

I’m going to need a decent ship, some volunteers, and a 101 day supply of daiquiris.

Edit: (For clarity - this is scientific reproduction, not human reproduction)

When you’re young you experience the world, when you get older you keep the world working for the young to experience it, and when you’re old you wish you’d made it work better so you could’ve really experienced it.

“Dead scientist #15” is more my speed

Microtransactions - the answer always has been and always will be microtransactions.

Not so much in London, and usually you need to pay for the public ones.

And during those billions of minutes, most of them are cursing the existence of the spyware experience that is teams.

We live in but a bright second, yet are determined to fill it with darkness unending.

4chan is an extreme example of an unmoderated site - indeed it’s what the OSA was designed to combat. If this legislative test fails, it would undermine the acts legitimacy, and provoke questions as to it’s existence.

It’s a shit law - it’s not fit for purpose. Its sole reason for existence is to controle public speech, not protect the children.

The three pathways for most academics

Option 1 - shit out a large pile of bad (either misleading, over-sensationalised, or just clearly partial work) papers, but get funding to do the same for another year.

Option 2 - work hard to create a quality paper, run out of time, no more funding, off you go to industry.

Option 3 - take a teaching intensive role and never have any time for research, oh and also get paid less than in industry.

Neat summary and cleanup - editing original post to point at this.

https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/30326565624343-How-to-Complete-Age-Verification-on-Discord

Check down on data security ;)

So, I looked at age verification - it was made clear photos were on device only and never transmitted.

If this turns out to be false, then the legal fallout would be apocalyptic.

(Edit: or not, see the comment by ambitiousprocess below)

I was thinking that, you’d think they’d strike once the pot is a little larger.

This was kind of breach so predictable even surprisedpikachu.txt isn’t enough, but it must be done.

⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣤⣶⣶ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⣀⣀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠁⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⠿⠿⠻⠿⠿⠟⠿⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠀⠀⢰⣹⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣷⠀⠀⠀⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠈⠉⠀⠀⠤⠄⠀⠀⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢾⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⡠⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠠⣿⣿⣷⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢄⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿

Ehh…

So, it’s more a case that the system cannot prove it’s own consistency (a system cannot prove it won’t lead to a contradiction). So the proof is valid within the system, but the validity of the system is what was considered suspect (i.e. we cannot prove it won’t produce a contradiction from that system alone).

These days we use relative consistency proofs - that is we assume system A is consistent and model system B in it thus giving “If A is consistent, then so too must B”.

As much as I hate to admit it, classical set theory has been fairly robust - though intuitionistic logic makes better philosophical sense. Fortunately both are equiconsistent (each can be used to imply the consistency of the other).

Didn’t know he had a degree in mathematics - that’s a fun one to share with my students.

Thanks!

“Statistical fact” - as someone forced to teach statistics, whenever a student writes this phrase they lose marks. Any statistical statement is an implication of evidence, not a statement of fact.