The two things that are most ridiculous about science in this day and age (imo, I work in the field) 1) Tons of papers get published wit...
The two things that are most ridiculous about science in this day and age (imo, I work in the field) 1) Tons of papers get published without the underlying data. Why is there no easy system in place where I have to upload all data from experiments etc. and if the data isn't there to be verified -> questionable research at best (or in the current framework of science autoreject) 2) Paywalls and the entire publishing system. Most science is state funded in some way, shape or form and as such it should be available for free for all citizens. I think publish and improve is an ok model but there's some issues like the author says it's pretty strange how the whole redacting a paper system works. It's also nontrivial to say "well I was wrong in my paper X as shown in papers Y and Z" (some sort of HTTP redirect to X/Z would be in order) Maybe I'm just not aware of it but it would also be interesting to have a huge Dung-style argumentation system of papers for fields (X attacks Y, Z defends Y etc.). Might be a neat project if it doesn't exist.
Posted by kriro on May 4, 2015, 9:56 PM
Tags
Related issues
- > Because they don't believe the disasters were inflicted by them.
- Hehe, yeah I'm not sure when John Stewart would have worked there or what the pain points were for him, but he worked there for a bit.
- https://www.apple.com/shop/product/mxcl3ll/a/magic-keyboard-...
- If first-order hybrids made up only a small proportion of the total population of humans and Neanderthals, then the probability that a pa...
- Well, I'd be interested to hear what some of those nuances are, personally.
- My biggest Amazon annoyance.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.6,500 issues0 comments
hackernews (E-commerce)
> Because they don't believe the disasters were inflicted by them.
Hehe, yeah I'm not sure when John Stewart would have worked there or what the pain points were for him, but he worked there for a bit.
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/mxcl3ll/a/magic-keyboard-...
If first-order hybrids made up only a small proportion of the total population of humans and Neanderthals, then the probability that a pa...
Well, I'd be interested to hear what some of those nuances are, personally.
My biggest Amazon annoyance.
> There's not really an unmet need for innovation in broadband delivery; the issue is running new wires broadband has costs, and in a lot...
Speaking of Amazon's account process, I have a really annoying problem with theirs.
The two things that are most ridiculous about science in this day and age (imo, I work in the field) 1) Tons of papers get published wit...
The two things that are most ridiculous about science in this day and age (imo, I work in the field) 1) Tons of papers get published without the underlying data. Why is there no easy system in place where I have to upload all data from experiments etc. and if the data isn't there to be verified -> questionable research at best (or in the current framework of science autoreject) 2) Paywalls and the entire publishing system. Most science is state funded in some way, shape or form and as such it should be available for free for all citizens. I think publish and improve is an ok model but there's some issues like the author says it's pretty strange how the whole redacting a paper system works. It's also nontrivial to say "well I was wrong in my paper X as shown in papers Y and Z" (some sort of HTTP redirect to X/Z would be in order) Maybe I'm just not aware of it but it would also be interesting to have a huge Dung-style argumentation system of papers for fields (X attacks Y, Z defends Y etc.). Might be a neat project if it doesn't exist.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.