gandalf_der_12te

joined 2 years ago
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

He made the worst possible metric about which to measure everything, and created a global system of narcissistic organizations selling their souls to publish to these journals.

In the words of Sydney Brenner (a biologist, it's in the article): the system is “corrupt”.

He basically turned science, which used to be boring ("Scientific conferences tended to be drab, low-ceilinged affairs"), into a big business ("There are tales of parties on the roof of the Athens Hilton, of gifts of Concorde flights, of scientists being put on a chartered boat tour of the Greek islands to plan their new journal.").

This article in the Guardian is definitely worth a read if you’re not intimately familiar with just how it got this way… It’s 8 years old so it won’t cover recent history but does give you an idea of how it started.

A very interesting read!

So, what i take form the article, is that Elsevier and other publishers are most similar to a search engine or index: They give you a list of all interesting articles in a field, so you don't have to search through the millions of scientific articles produced each year yourself.

That makes it kinda similar to google, which is also very profitable, which also turns a profit by giving back user-supplied content to the users. Just that Elsevier charges for that "indexlist" functionality directly, while google takes the game one step further and harvests data, which it then uses to display targeted ads.

You know what, why wouldn't it be the same on all social media platforms? Maybe our news are all posted by bots/bangladesh people too?

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

get them jobs

jobs are ableist. i don't see why people revere them so much.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

from my experience, netflix is one of the few companies who actually produce hot new shows somewhat regularly. it's weird to me how everybody keeps shitting on them.

It genuinely floors me that few medium and large-sized companies don’t use Linux for desktops.

our university does. at least on most computers.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

especially if it's a windows computer :D

I like the analogy with a surgeon or a firefighter.

Of course, the surgeon has to be available in case somebody needs an operation. But the best that can happen to society at large is that the surgeon is never needed because nobody's sick.

Same with firefighters. Of course they have to be there to fight fires, but it's better if houses don't start to burn down in the first place!

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

“Companies aren’t innovating anymore and it’s costing the economy”

companies aren't innovating anymore because physical limits have been reached. Moore's law holds no longer true. Transistors can't be packed more tightly into space anymore while also making the computer chip cheaper at the same time.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

I'd argue it's actually more the fault of the politicians than the CEOs, because the politicians cut taxes for the rich and set the rules of the game for companies to operate in; companies merely take opportunity of the exploits presented to them.

I'd also say that companies have a so called "fiduciary duty" to maximize shareholder values, as typically understood by economy classes. the way to change that behavior is to change the rules to which the companies have to keep. that means, instead of exploiting workers, they should pay taxes and benefit the community that way.

i had a samsung s4 mini (one of those really old phones, which are closer to a nokia brick than a modern smartphone IMHO) for years and it worked well. it lasted for 5+ years minimum. i bought a new samsung smartphone in 2022 (second hand though) and it shipped broken. randomly shut down, some kind of power issue. i never bothered to return it because it was rather cheap anyways and i had installed a custom OS on it at that point, which voids the warranty.

I bought a motorola afterwards but am only semi-happy with it. everything seems to work well with it, but i don't feel like it's a good phone. it feels kinda sleazy, somehow. i'm not sure whether it's only because of the color scheme it uses or sth else, but it doesn't feel alright. i'm still looking for a new phone.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

any recommendations for long-lasting phones?

for desktop computers it used to be acer (laptop) for me. i bought one in 2012 and it lasted close to 10 years, which i consider really long. even then, i didn't buy a new one because of hardware defects, but because the hardware specs were long out of date. i bought a new acer (laptop) in 2021 and it enshittified heavily, lasting only 18 months before i had to buy a new computer.

then i bought a thinkpad (laptop) and have been happy with it ever since. it's been running for at least 2-3 years by now and shows no signs of aging at all, even though it's already second-hand. great device.

 

I know that many people don't like complex or intransparent recommendation algorithms.

Currently, there are "subscribed", "local" and "all" categories (at least in the default lemmy web UI).

I would like to change this to include custom topics ("listings"). They are a custom way of choosing content (in case of Lemmy listings). In Lemmy, custom listings appear just like standard listings (API-wise), just that instead of "https://discuss.tchncs.de/?dataType=Post&listingType=Subscribed&sort=Active" you have "https: //discuss.tchncs.de/?dataType=Post&listingType=list:AAAA4865698@lemmy.world&sort=Active" or something.

Listings could either be lists of communities and other listings. Consider this simple text file to describe a listing for a memes-topic: (that contains 2 communities, everything on 1 domain, and another sub-listing)

c:memes@lemmy.world
c:memes@lemmy.ml
domain:memes.net
list:AAAA4865698@lemmy.world

Or they could take their data from an RSS stream or similar external source.

893
morphology-based phylogeny (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
 
 

In regards to the recent Portland Naked Bike Ride. link

 

German wikipedia defines a biological species as a group where individuals can reproduce offspring with other members of the group, but not with individuals outside of the group.

First of all, to the best of my knowledge, proper sexual reproduction only happens with Eukaryotes. Then this means that no bacteria ever reproduce offspring with other individuals, and therefore each bacterium is its own species.

But that is a meaningless definition. If each bacterium is its own species, then the categorization into species becomes meaningless.

On top of that, bacteria have "pseudosexual" horizontal gene transfer (HGT) which allows them to exchange genetic material with any other bacterium (if the circumstances are right; if i understand this correctly). So all bacteria are in a single species if you look at it that way.

I understand that bacteria normally don't undergo HGT with all other bacteria because some might only open up at hot temperatures while others only open up in cold temperatures - thus creating a natural barrier. But it is also my understanding that while such barriers exist, they're not permanent and can be overcome in nature (without human intervention) for example due to certain virus infections and similar circumstances.

Long story short:

Wouldn't it make more sense to just consider that the concept of "species" only apples to eukaryotes and not to bacteria at all? Wouldn't that save all of us a headache? Maybe we should consider bacterial species to be less strict that eukaryotic species. Maybe we should describe bacteria by their individual features and give that group a name, instead of expecting that diverging lines of evolution cannot ever come together again.

 

Toxic masculinity is a global phenomenon, but nowhere is it more virulent than in this hypermodern, connected society. What can other countries learn from this ‘ground zero’ of misogyny?

 

It takes a lot of parts that come from different sources and also sensitivity to place every screw correctly. It might be very difficult for a purely robot-run society to reproduce the robots themselves successfully.

You might have a factory that creates trucks, but who creates the robots that work in the factory? They're a different type of robot, and if you have a factory to produce them too, who produces the robots that work at that factory? The issue might be very difficult, and even if it's possible, you probably would need a very large industrial system to successfully and reliable reproduce every type of robot.

Meanwhile (biological) living beings can reproduce themselves successfully, especially plants, given nothing but water, CO~2~, some sunlight and some mineralic fertilizer (which might already be present in the landscape). That ability to self-reproduce is amazing and might be what makes life special.


These thoughts are relevant because it might mean that robots can never really get rid of humanity, i.e. overthrow humanity's rule and kill all humans. At least a few will be needed forever to ensure the robots can be reproduced. So you have something like: Humans reproduce themselves and also produce machines, which then do most of the hard work in the world. Kinda like DNA produces proteins, which then does most of the biochemical work inside a cell.

 

I've been studying a bit of human history recently and as many of you have probably heard, the worldwide population count increased sharply in the last century or so. link

the world's population was between 250 million and 500 million throughout the entire medieval age (500 AD to 1500 AD), so i assumed 330 million people on average (which it was around 1000 AD). 330 million people for a thousand years makes 330 billion human-years.

In the time period since 1970, approximately 6 billion people lived on earth on average, so that makes 55 * 6 billion = 330 billion human-years.

so, roughly speaking, as many human-years happened since 1970 than in the entire medieval history.

that might do a part in explaining why technological and societal progress has been so fast in the last couple of decades.

 

I've been studying a bit of human history recently and as many of you have probably heard, the worldwide population count increased sharply in the last century or so. link

the world's population was between 250 million and 500 million throughout the entire medieval age (500 AD to 1500 AD), so i assumed 330 million people on average (which it was around 1000 AD). 330 million people for a thousand years makes 330 billion human-years.

In the time period since 1970, approximately 6 billion people lived on earth on average, so that makes 55 * 6 billion = 330 billion human-years.

so, roughly speaking, as many human-years happened since 1970 than in the entire medieval history.

that might do a part in explaining why technological and societal progress has been so fast in the last couple of decades.

208
free-range zucchini (discuss.tchncs.de)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
 

futurama s6e22

context is fry and leila (and bender) are going to a "local farmer's market"

-18
Futurama sucks (external-content.duckduckgo.com)
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
 

(I moved this post over from !mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world because it fits better here)

I'm currently watching Futurama for the first time because i always kinda thought it was cool when i was younger.

I recognize now how much it sucks.

The major thing that annoys me is that it displays the world in the year 3000 as if people would still have to hold down a job to earn enough money to live. The idea of full-employment sickens me. In my mind, i exclusively do tedious things in the hope that some day, they won't ever have to be done again. Like software development. Linux only has to be written once. Once functional, it basically lasts forever, or at least close to (only minor modifications need to be made, like adaptations to a new protocol or sth).

The very idea that people will still have to work in the year 3000 is very repulsive. It shows that society hasn't matured enough yet. I hope this is not the future that we actually end up with.

view more: next ›