![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/q98XK4sKtw.png)
Thanks for spreading the word!
Thanks for spreading the word!
Yeah, and in the last couple decades the NIH and NSF have become more applications-focused. If you can’t show a commercial application for your basic research. It’s less likely to get funded. Now, the DOD is the easiest way to get true basic research funded, which isn’t ideal; only basic research which the DOD thinks is important will get funded.
Fun fact, the NSF was founded after WWII to fund basic science just in case it found something with applications.
Unfortunately, the driving force behind it was the DOD, whose idea was that if even 1% of the work funded eventually became relevant to weapons research, then it would be “worth it”. But hey, at least basic science got funded.
This is very true! The structure of scientific revolutions is an interesting perspective on this, although it focuses on the huge leaps. It talks a lot about how incremental progress and huge leaps into new ways of understanding a science are mutually dependent.
I’m gonna pitch that a potato is a volume (3D), a chip is a surface (2D), and a fry is a line (1D), and so fries and chips should be flipped.
Silverblue doesnt either… I think you’re right, it’s an immutable distro thing.
That is true, but software is a much newer field overall than academia – journals like Nature are over 100 years old, and the way prestige of journals works in academia and publishing hasn’t changed significantly since the 50s. Academic publishing has a lot more momentum to change than tech, and academics have very little power to do so on an institutional level, it kinda has to come from administrators, who don’t understand the problem or care.
Nothing against wasps, but they do not make honey.
I’ve tried to use scribus, but the interface is pretty clunky and it doesnt react well to high-dpi screens in my experience.
I’m curious about what you think is missing from Inkscape. I use it and illustrator for design work all the time, and I’ve never run into issues with something missing from Inkscape.
Trick question – Elon Musk being anything but an arrogant asshole is impossible under the Standard Model.
tl;dr: science is in the eye of the beholder, you can only know if it’s science if the methods are transparent and you have access to data, as well as critiques from unbiased parties.
This thread seems to have formed two sides:
I would say that “closed”/unpublished science may be science, but since peer review and replication of results are the only way we can tell if something is legitimate science, the problem is that we simply can’t know until a third party (or preferably, many third parties) have reviewed it.
There are a lot of forms that review can take. The most thorough is to release it to the world and let anyone read and review it, and so it and the opinions of others with expertise in the subject are also public. Anyone can read both the publications and response, do their own criticism, and know whether it is science.
If “closed” science has been heavily reviewed and critiqued internally, by as unbiased a party as possible, then whoever has access to the work and critique can know it’s science, but the scientific community and the general public will never be able to be sure.
The points folks have made about individuals working in secret making progress actually support this; I’ll use Oppenheimer as an example.
In the 40s, no one outside the Manhattan project knew how nuclear bombs were made. Sure, they exploded, but no one outside that small group knew if the reasoning behind why they exploded was correct.
Now, through released records, we know what the supporting theory was, and how it was tested. We also know that subsequent work based on that theory (H-bomb development, etc.) and replication (countries other than the US figuring out how to make nukes, in some cases without access to US documents on how it was originally done) was successful and supported the original explanations of why it worked. So now we all know that it was science.
I mean hypothetically yes, but if you’re in the sciences tenure, promotion, and wages will be based on publication in high impact factor, for profit journals, so that’s not realistic.
Cool! Good to know.
What’s the issue with binaries in git? Just that diff’ing binary files is useless?
Me with Jupyter Notebooks
I mean yes you can use beamer to make slides, but it is a lot less flexible than ppt/LibreOffice Present.
Yeah, the headline writer. The actual information (and indeed the entire article) doesn’t say anything about breaking a covenant, its just that Canonical is changing how they treat updates.
Hmmm I guess I haven’t really compared them on documents over about 20 pages, and even then it was just a qualitative judgment.
From OpenSUSE there’s also leap micro. Never used it, but maybe worth looking at.
If you don’t like fedora it might still be worth trying one of the fedora atomics, depending on what you didn’t like. For instance, I could never get used to dnf, but it’s largely irrelevant on an atomic distro anyways.
I would love to see a true atomic Debian-based distro, but I think that’s a long way from maturity.
Edit: opensuse aeon will also be released soon, but at least the comments on this post seem to think that there’s some important things missing from Suse atomic.