Sometimes you have to use complicated terms because you’re dealing with complicated ideas…

Other times it’s clear that the authors are just trying to pad the length of a paper and sound more pompous.

In Brazil we call this “enchendo linguiça”, which literally translates to “filling sausage”.

As someone who’s not too familiar with the bureaucracy of academia I have to ask: Can’t the authors just upload all their studies to ResearchGate or some other website if they want? I know that they often share it privately with others when they request a paper, so can they post it publicly too?

But in case you’re curious about the actual answer

Ages ago I was doing some research on the prevalence of different paraphilias (my main focus being zoophilia as I was contributing to WikiFur), and this was one of the few large representative studies I came across. There’s one more from Canada, but they didn’t ask about autogynephilia/androphilia.

Reasons…

It’s kind of ironic that Freud came up with this weird theory considering autogynephilia is more common in men than autoandrophilia is in women: The Prevalence of Paraphilic Interests in the Czech Population: Preference, Arousal, the Use of Pornography, Fantasy, and Behavior

I’ve always wondered if some sort of decentralized, community-led system would be better than the current peer review process.

That is, someone can submit their paper and it’s publicly available for all to read, then people with expertise in fields relevant to that paper could review and rate its quality.

Now that I think about it it’s conceptually similar to Twitter’s community notes, where anyone with enough reputation can write a note and if others rate it as helpful it’s shown to everyone. Though unlike Twitter there would obviously need to be some kind of vetting process so that it’s not just random people submitting and rating papers.

yea lol

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1930043324004096

I’ve recently been watching a lot of videos on prominent cases of fraud and malpractice like Francesca Gino, Claudine Gay, Hwang Woo-suk, etc., which prompted me to start reading more into meta-research as well, and now I’m basically paranoid about every paper I read. There’s so much shady shit going on…

Best I can do is abstract and discussion. Take it or leave it.

It is, in fact, very easy to code a game!

from pygame import game
game.load_player()
game.load_enemies()
game.load_audio()
game.run()

deleted by creator

update it faster

*cries in Deltarune fan*

As someone who studied CS at uni for 3 years I saw first hand how there’s plenty of idiots in this field. Two of my classmates identified as Nazis and thought that the holocaust didn’t happen, besides a significant chunk leaning to the right more generally.

There’s plenty of really smart people working in the field of AI, but there’s also plenty of people who just think they’re smart.

Every day spez is DIGGing himself into a deeper hole…

Have you tried some data augmentation?

For a second I thought this might’ve been part of the Mandelbrot set.

Ice Squid Condensation? Ice Squid Evaporation? Or is the punchline that you changed the chemistry of the genie?

I don’t get it.

That’s just XQC’s desk

I’m more of a Pandas DataFrame kind of guy myself

Organ

Also organ

Organge

deleted by creator