Show newer

I am henceforth proposing the word "ambiative" (plural "ambiatives") to refer to either a positive or negative attribute of a given system, or a set of positive and negative attributes in the plural case.

There are no words I have been able to find that succinctly encapsulate the idea of "pros and cons" or "positives and negatives" in a single word, so I'm making one up. "Tradeoffs" comes close, but I don't think it's precise, and carries some undesirable baggage.

Even the roots make sense: -ative means "related to or connected with" and ambi- meaning "both". Similar to the definition of ambivalent: having both positive and negative feelings, but in this case it is the set of both positive and negative attributes.

Intended usage: "I'm weighing the ambiatives of the situation." Or similar, just replace pros and cons/positive and negative/etc.

John BS boosted

RT @fchollet@twitter.com

Twitter is great because it gives you unfiltered visibility into the thoughts and decision-making process of some of the most successful people in the world. This has completely cured my impostor syndrome.

🐦🔗: twitter.com/fchollet/status/16

@vicgrinberg

You're right I don't know you or who you're watching this with. Hence, the complete lack of desire to make anything other than what was intended to be an encouraging comment.

I wasn't insinuating anything, nor was I claiming the person you were watching with was somehow inferior to another person, or anything else of the sort.

Any negativity your perceived was entirely due to your own eisegesis of what I wrote, as none was intended on my end.

At this point, I wish I hadn't even engaged.

I hope you have a nice day, and that we can hopefully have better, if any, interactions in the future.

@vicgrinberg

First off, sorry for deleting the original right as your responded, as this toot is now hanging.

I meant the following: "Right, I was using "rambling" as a self-deprecating catchall term. Perhaps I could have used a more inclusive verb to your particular case."

Finally, I'm not here to argue, I was just trying to keep things lighthearted and encouraging. Take my comments as you wish, but they weren't meant to be pointed at anyone or thing in particular other than myself.

@vicgrinberg That is a lot of my wife and I talk about!

We speculate on video game lore ALL the time (Elden Ring has been the topic du jour) , and when I write D&D campaigns (at least the ones she doesn't play in) we go crazy on the theory crafting about the history of certain deities and how they relate to real-world pantheons and creation myths and such, and how that sets up the foundation for new mechanics, new story-telling opportunities, etc.

So yeah, if they don't have the emotional stake that's one thing, but some people just like to listen to other people ramble about things that they like! Unfortunately, finding those weirdos is the hard part, because they tend not to advertise it 😂

@vicgrinberg Find someone who doesn't care about spoilers! I promise they exist (fortunately for my wife and I, we both fall in that bin), and they're a lot more fun to show new stuff you're excited about 😄

John BS boosted

Stages of getting into a new research thing

1. No one has thought of this
2. Oh, some people have, but it’s not exactly the same
3. Oh, it’s exactly the same
4. OMG, everyone already knows about this, but they all call it something different

John BS boosted

How do we fix our broken science funding system?

Criteria reform ✍️: Remove biased criteria and emphasize good science practices

Lottery system 🎟️: Applications are given a “yes” or “no” on fundability, then a lottery ensues within the “yes” group. Saves time and reduces reviewer biases

Universal funding 🌍: All scientists get a little bit. One calculation estimates that it would cost the government nothing to implement (in the UK)

/3
@academicchatter #science #openscience #academicchatter

Show thread

@sibin I'm currently using the latex package, but I have tikz and such loaded as well. Should I try loading the sty files or something else instead?

John BS boosted

PEER REVIEW PROBLEMS

In a classic experiment, 12 articles were resubmitted to the same journals in which they had already been published. Three were recognized as resubmissions. Eight of the nine articles reviewed again were rejected, often due to "serious methodological flaws."

cambridge.org/core/journals/be @phdstudents @academicchatter @cogsci @academicsunite

John BS boosted

Does science advance one funeral at a time?

One paper morbidly suggests so: "after the death of a star scientist, the flow of articles by non-collaborators [of the deceased] increases markedly [...] and is disproportionately likely to be highly cited."

The top 1% most-cited scientists account for 21% of citations. So a star's death leads to a citation vacuum, allowing lesser known researchers the chance to advance and reform the field.

@academicchatter #science #academicchatter #openscience

@leahdriel I wish I could cite this for everything I do! It would make proving my arguments in manuscripts so much easier 😂😂😂

@leahdriel
I'm looking forward to reading the methods section, especially on how you tested that latter claim 😂

Got started on my self improvement plan 1.25 months early this time. And it doesn't rely on extreme willpower, massive routine shifts, or anything crazy. Just an under-desk elliptical, an exercise bike in front of my TV, and a weight bench in my office.

It's not nice when you feel like the quintessential depiction of a "before" photo (even though I'm apparently not *that* bad looking). I've just taken my first progress shots: time to get that "after" physique. And then...I can buy my new sexy clothes.

I've already got my savings account buckets tracking money for my new shoes, my new tweed suits, chinos, and some other nice pieces for my wardrobe. I am so hype, and I wanna be walking into fall semester looking ✨*c l a s s y*✨

(One downside is that I basically have to buy everything new. Thrift stores don't typically carry clothes for people my height, and they definitely don't have my shoe size. One more reason to look forward to checking out the Netherlands: all the tall-people thrift stores and maybe some size 47 shoes 😁)

@sibin

Hey Sibin, sorry this response is so late to the thread, but I'm finally trying it out and getting some strange errors on overleaf: specifically that "no shape named `{whatever}` is known" with the annotate macro.

Do you happen to have an idea of what the deal is and how I can address it? (P.S. Sorry if this is the wrong place to reach out---or if if I should ask someone else---I can always put this elsewhere instead!)

@Pat @kristinmbranson @erictopol

I'm going to dissent (only a bit) here.

Your mask must fully seal against your face, so you must shave any facial hair you have, and have your mask appropriately fitted by OSHA (or eu equivalent) members. Alternatively, you should procure a PAPR, with HEPA or P100 equivalent filters.

These two requirements and the expense (and bulkiness) of "user friendly" alternatives really limits the effectiveness of high filtration efficiency masks: if there's a leak, it's easier for the fluid to go through that opening than through the filter media, hence the wearer is still either spewing crap, or inhaling it.

Not to say cloth masks are superior when both are worn **correctly**, but since cloth masks have lower resistance, you **may** get better droplet filtration than a P100 mask that is worn incorrectly, and it's much easier to wear a P100 mask incorrectly. (I believe there was a study on this, but I can't find it atm).

Just my 2 cents, not dissing masks, but a lot of people are unaware of what goes into wearing high efficiency masks correctly.

John BS boosted

Stanford University is investigating its president for manipulating images in their papers.

"...these cases aren’t rare" says @retractionwatch @armarcus @ivanoransky

"A retraction for image manipulation happens about once every other day"

That amount is likely the tip of the iceberg given that image fraud is usually discovered by unpaid research sleuths, not publishers.

@academicchatter #sciencereform #researchintegrity #academicchatter #science
statnews.com/2022/12/02/image-

John BS boosted

RT @mattwridley@twitter.com

"Demanding an impossible standard of evidence for politically awkward findings, while inferring causation at the drop of a hat when the science supports the cause, has been standard practice in public health for decades."

🐦🔗: twitter.com/mattwridley/status

Show older
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.