The thing that gets me is that these people are all really smart. If someone is willing to lie and do math, why not work at an unscrupulous pharma/finance company? They’d make way more money and do way less work. I’d even argue that fraud in the private sector is less unethical - if investors give money to a fraud they deserve to lose it, and regulators take an adversarial stance and have whole orgs (in theory) policing fraud like the SEC and FDA.

It takes a really particular kind of scumbag to seek a position of public trust, make a bunch of trainees financially and professionally dependent on them, accept taxpayer money intended to help cancer patients, then commit fraud.

What in the world is the original context here? Have these people never encountered a puddle before? Her foot is completely immersed in gutter water and his white pants are about to be soaked and gross.

A very cool idea, however the headline is misleading - NASA has not even remotely committed to running this mission. They’ve selected the swarm project as one of 13 projects in their innovation program and given it up to $175k to study feasibility. That’s roughly a postdoc for two years. This is far, far from committing the hundreds of millions or billions needed for the execution of this mission.

On Mander, fighting the clickbait pop science menace is every citizen’s duty. Are you doing your part?

This is a really cool read with lots of very strong results, but “show” doesn’t seem like the right word for the specific claim the article makes from the paper. In grad school we had a professor who led the first year seminar who drilled into us the importance of using the right word to communicate inferential strength. “Is consistent with” is weaker than “suggests” is weaker than “shows” is weaker than “proves” (really only mathematicians should use “prove”). Section E3 on this website has a similar hierarchy.

My “speak up in seminar” reflex was going off here because this article jumps one - possibly two - whole levels of inferential strength from what’s actually written in the paper.

In the paper, the inferential claims in the "communal effort’ part are:

These differences clearly suggest a lack of evident social stratification…

further revealed no clear signs of social stratification

It’s possible I missed a stronger inferential claim about the communal aspect - Please correct me if so!

I think “are consistent with” or “suggest” would more accurately communicate the strength of the results. The evidence presented that the drainage system was a communal effort is that the houses were the same size and the graves didn’t seem to be differentiated. This seems like absence of evidence for a state authority/hierarchy, not evidence of absence.

I love that more and more open source science projects are streamlining deployment and encouraging folks to just try it. This one has a binder link in the README (though it seems to be failing… may need some TLC). I really think this is a positive template for what academia could eventually become!