In my field it’s often general journal policy, not an individual choice. It’s hit or miss, as it can be easy to guess who the reviewer or author is in a niche field. I personally don’t go out of my way to figure out the author’s affiliation, even if it can be trivial. Regarding self citations, those are usually obfuscated at the review stage. I’d say that a paper is easy to narrow down to a circle of scholars, but it might be the first paper of a research associate, a throwaway paper by a PI, or a paper that aims to engage those narrow specialists. So is a kind of smoke screen.

I actually robot-fed my kitten from day one, so they basically don’t associate me with food at all, just with cuddles and reprimands.

Thank God for double blind peer reviews, warts and all.

Reminds me of this work by Latour. It goes into the tremendous amount of oftentimes political labor that goes into the establishment of new scientific knowledge as paradigmatic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pasteurization_of_France

This assumes that the aorta cannot be deformed by the school bus. Cooked penne can be destroyed by a six sided die.

Conversely, social scientists tend to compete on how to underdress the most.

Cool! Reminds me of my childhood - my old summer house is nearby, so I’ve seen this citadel hundreds of times.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Lavra_of_St._Sergius

And cats. They were a menace.

Always makes me think of this song.

Exactly, in honor of Jimmy Neutron.

Ah, I see. That makes more sense 😌

Kinda interesting to see, since Russia does not have Spotify afaik.

They look upset 🤔

That second horse doesn’t look too healthy, either.

I think it’s because of the home button right underneath the prints.

Such a cozy photo! 😺

Steep, surely? Simmering for 20mins would ANNIHILATE much of the flavor.

I see, I’m happy she found a loving home ☺️

You called your cat pooper? 🙀

https://youtu.be/peUe-82Qgs4?si=Gcfg2kMUIv7ysqOm