archonet

it's not about a takedown, really, I'm not trying to be mean (not especially hard, anyways), I just want to understand what Nature, or science as a whole, did to piss them off enough to make shit up about it. Or if they're just having a bad day they oughta just say so.

that sounds like the dumbest horseshit I've ever heard of, both because an educational journal is built on its reputation, and because even if it were true, you'd still be wrong to imply that's a bad thing for a different reason: proving some other guy wrong is part of the process.

let's assume -- even for a brief moment -- you are, in fact, 100% correct with this claim.

You're almost definitely not, but hey, let's assume.

scientists are all about being right, so much so that they loathe their own frauds (watch some BobbyBroccoli documentaries if you don't believe me), and they also take extreme pleasure in disproving each other. sometimes, good science is in trying to disprove what some other guy or some other team said because "I want to be right/I want that fucker I hate to be wrong (we're all petty humans, even scientists)/I want us to understand the world better, and we need to know if this is in fact as they claim". Peer review is ingrained in their doctrine, that's what good science is. You think if someone, a person with enemies, competition, and friends alike, got their paper in one of the most prestigious educational journals in the world, someone, somewhere wouldn't be going "nuh-uh! I bet I can prove otherwise!"? And at that point it's two scholars betting their career dick to swing around that they're right and the other guy's wrong, unless of course peer review actually means that prestigious journals generally don't publish horseshit.

in short: your claim is not only wrong, it is... a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works as a concept, I feel? Maybe not always in practice -- there's always politics sticking their dick into the mix to muddy the waters -- but that's part of what these journals pay and charge for. Prestigious peers. To review papers and generally make sure that nothing they publish is outright bullshit.

now, are they fair prices for knowledge that helps us all is another debate, but suffice to say: going "fuck you I'm gonna find out if you're wrong" is literally part of the job.

Are you just, like... not that bright? Or is this just a transient phase, a hard night for you?

Don't forget walks.

That dog doesn't "get taken" for a walk, it'll take you for a walk. Or a drag.

And that any evidence of the zombie eating brains is simply Western propaganda.

life clings to me like a disease

fortunately, I plan on having a massive heart attack in my late 40s/early 50s, just before the wars over clean water and food start. And they told me I didn't know how to plan for the future.

ah, so now instead of China spying on TikTok users, it will be Russia spying on TikTok users.

"stay in your lane" motherfucker it's the pope, his lane is whatever he (or He, if you believe) wants it to be.

but are those cheese bags endorsed by a dashing celebrity chef?

a paywall I am sure will be exactly as effective as google's attempts at ad-blocking on YouTube, for exactly the same reason: a dedicated group of pissed off nerds who spend their time getting around it as a service to everyone. Bypass Paywalls Clean is already a thing.

I think the worst thing about PirateSoftware is that he can have some surprisingly reasonable takes and nuggets of wisdom in his shorts that lure you in, but the moment you start getting into more of his content and actually try to figure out what he's about as a person you discover he's a smug asshole with an overdeveloped sense of self-righteousness. Some people never dig that deeply or simply don't care if he doesn't practice the mindfulness he preaches, these are his fans.