HexesofVexes

Lemmy doesn’t always get sarcasm - please don’t stop though!

A running joke could be renaming the genders as “solo” and “co-op” for MMOs.

In some fields (e.g. mathematics) old papers hold up well. However, in fields like psychology where the landscape shifts a lot that’s probably a good shout!

Honestly, I always poke the stats no matter how good the journal. The best way to read any article is as a skeptic (the onus is on the writer to prove their point), and any small irregularity is something to be queried.

No matter how good the journal, it’s only as good as the reviewers, and reviewers are humans too. Odds are a paper in nature is all above board, but I’m somewhat of a pedant when it comes to checking test conditions.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-19418-4.pdf

Paper itself above. Need a deeper reading with my notes but on the surface the stats are so-so. They check normality, but don’t confirm linearity (use of pmcc will not be valid without - there are also a few other conditions to check for hypothesis testing with PMCC if memory serves), use of a continuous test (PMCC, ANOVA, unpaired t’s) for discrete (likert) data is also little controversial, but generally condoned.

As for the conclusion, not a psych phd so I’ll assume they know their stuff!

Honestly, I think most tech CEO decisions are being made with crackgpt.

The rust part, if done well, would be a good step.

Then again, coding in rust is pain, and given how young it is AI is unlikely to manage well with it, and there isn’t the technical ability in rust present to fix what breaks.

Not Unix, but a good project selling stickers to fund it…

https://catbox.moe/

(Not open source, but pretty neat nonetheless)

Find out what (or if they drink) first!

Clearly they gave every last fuck they could about that code.

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)

Snake with a hundred mage hands who is actually a detective called “dick-long”?

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

So the traditional answer here is to ask them to point at the door the other guard will say is safe.

However, I’m curious, does anyone know of any other valid solutions?

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

"Mom can I have dragon?

“No, we have dragon at home.”

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.