FailForward @FailForward@social.cleverlibre.org

I miss a feature at #QOTO / #mastodon to allow me to temporarily filter out certain topics (or at least hashtags) from my timeline to see what "else" happened. E.g., while I am flooded with JohnMastodon (which is fun of course) and all sorts of musk stuff, I would like to filter that out, just to easily see what else is going on in my timeline without endless scrolling.

@piggo I understand it so that they are not only blocking links to other social networks, but also to aggregators which make it easy to "mention" twitter+other social networks alongside. The paranoia goes quite deep in this step.

@fribbledom

@piggo I guess this: https://mastodon.social/@Pwnallthethings/109535952391538416 @fribbledom

@jens Let me fix it for you:

> I don't have ..., _yet_.

@markusl @bob

@academicalnerd

Well, AI/ML and generally CompSci research works quite differently to other areas. In CS the primary discussion forum are conferences. It works like this:
1. you have an idea, you float it at a specific workshop (organised on fringes of large conferences) - space is typically 15 pages of text
2. once the idea is OK, you flesh out important fragments of it out, work out experiments and publish at (gradually) large conferences (typically up to 6 pages each)
3. finalise the paper for conference proceedings - the main track record of the discourse in the field
4. only after years of doing this, you summarise the approach in a journal paper (virtually unlimited space, it's not unusual to review 100pg journal manuscripts)

In other natural sciences, mostly physics et al., the process is the other way round: you work out journal papers and conferences are then only social and networking events where you speak about the stuff ex-post.

This CS "anomaly" indeed leads to a higher turn-around, but is still slow and buggy because major conferences are only annual, or even bi-annual events (IJCAI, ECAI, AAAI, AAMAS, etc.). There were interesting experiments such as VLDB, which (if I am not mistaken) first published papers in a rolling release of proceedings and only afterwards the conference was a selection of papers.

But afaik whoever experimented with commenting system around e.g., arxiv, it turned out to be a futile exercise. People simply do not participate as much as would be necessary for it to work.

@abde

## Hans de Booij - Annabel

> Annabel, het wordt niets zonder jou, Annabel

Oud, maar nog steeds fijn.

https://on.soundcloud.com/CKpzE

#JohnMastodon This hashtag is hilarious! 🤣

@academicalnerd

I think you need to reconsider your view and expectations on the scientific discourse machine. There is no better quick turn-around forum for discussing results/ideas than conferences and journals. It just works slowly:
1. publish an idea
1. no reaction --> probably garbage
1. paper citing you --> some reaction, discussion starts
1. rinse, repeat

It takes years to discuss ideas in this manner. And while you address your message to somebody, rarely you get a reaction from the same side, rather from elsewhere (if it works of course).

I came to believe that this is the best way in the end. Once you prolong your time-horizons to decades, a discourse evolving on time-scales of months and years starts to make sense.

@abde

@piggo Did I hear you lately trying to remove the blobcat emoji set?

@academicalnerd There with you. Keep writing.