🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@GrassrootsReview I never said anything about prefering a journal where edirors or reviewers have less expertise. I am talking about a system that is open and transparent, hopefully this should result in **more** expertise, not less.

The last thing an open and transparent process would do would be to create climate "skeptics" articles that are considered credible, since it the system would require a scientist to prove their expertise openly. In fact quite the opposite, such an open and transparent, but high reputation/expertise, decentralized system ideally should gain trust not just from traditional scientists but also people like climate change deniers, and this hopefully should build trust with the scientific community once again.

@icedquinn What cha' soldering?

@GrassrootsReview Right, the point here is there is a centralized group (in this case the editors and peer reviewers collectively) who decide reputations and what passes and what doesnt, and generally obscures the peer-review process publicly. Thus not just centralizing the process to a select few at the journal, but ultimately obscuring it from public scrutiny as well.

The point of decentralization is openness, to allow the consumer of the article to have the power to judge the reputation by opening up the processes and giving them the information needed to do so.

@dielan

"The code in the Q picture"...

What exactly is "the Q picture"?

@GrassrootsReview

> In a good system the reputation of the authors is not important. My colleagues will be willing to read my blog posts, but new people and outsiders need the support of the reputation of the journal.

That doesnt add up to me. Typically the journal decides who can or can't get the final say on peer-review. So yes, the people submitting and authoring the peer review absolutely matters. The journal just acts asa a proxy to decide who can or can not make the call on peer-review.

> Reviewers are normally not named. Requesting them to do so makes it a lot harder to find reviewers because that means writing reviews affects your reputation and which would require putting in 10 times as much work.

Right, my system would allow reviewers to remain anonymous while still allowing them to gain a reputation. You might know two reviewers are the same person, but you wont know who that person is.

The problem here is that while I agree reviewers should have some level of anonymity, at the same time the general public should be able to review the peer-review process itself and judge it on an article by article basis, as well as judge the reputation of the reviewer (without knowing their identity, so based solely on their past quality of work reviewing).

@GrassrootsReview Reputation is important, but not of the journal, of the people publishing and those doing the peer review.

Decentralized journals dont exist, only a collection of centralized journals, not the same thing. Each journal is centralized and largely independent from each other.

In a proper decentralized systems the article writers and peer reviewers would have a reputation that isnt tied with or verified by any journal acting as an authority but rather in a decentralized way.

Yes I agree a proper writeup on the mechanics would be key to really have a meaningful discussion of my plans.

@GrassrootsReview Many centralized journals does not equate to decentralization. The whole point of a decentralized framework is to remove the authority and thus any need for consideration of a journals integrity (as there are no journals).

@pganssle
Id agree you can tell beyond meat isnt real meat, impossible burger would definitely have me fooled though. That said beyond burger doesnt taste like a high quality home made burger, more like a fatty lower grade patty, at least in terms of texture.

@Bradley_JF I never said Eugene's logic makes sense :)

@Bradley_JF It is specifically designed **not** to be configurable. Eugene seems to feel consistency among the servers is important so many things, like post length, are explicitly not configurable.

Instances like QOTO that have custom post length have had to edit the source code directly.

@olamundo

People keep telling me about this mythical good vegan cheese... I'll believe it when i see it. It would be nice to find some sort of healthier and more environmentally friendly cheese!

@moopet

@moopet well if we are talking vegan food in general.... it depends.. impossible burger is amazing, but other vegan burgers, none of them remotely taste like meat to me (though some arent bad as their own thing)

Vegan cheese is perpetually shitty, never found any good stuff...

However if you get away from vegan stuff trying to imitate non-vegan stuff and just eat like normal vegan food, then yea, lots of good stuff out there to rock.

I'm not even a vegan and I must admit, impossible burgers are good as hell... First time I ever had a vegan burger that actually legitly tasted like a burger.

@logarithmus Hi there.

@josemanuel

I will confess, the quality of programmers on average has went down to shit levels recently compared to when computers were new... 99% of programmers in the work force should have never been programmers, they dont have it in them.

Worse yet even just general work ethic, outside of programming, has went to the shitter in the last decade or two. As someone who has spent many years hiring and firing people the decline in work ethic has been staggering. I have to fire people left and right these days.

@pthenq1

@pthenq1 im well less complexity in dependencies too.. but frankly as someone who coded in the ancient days I cant say avoiding bugs was really any easier **in your own code**... there was just a lot less unexpected bugs coming from dependency shit. Or at least, thats how I remember it.

Back when game developers actually had to make sure their games worked without major bugs on the **first** release...