Not everything gets retracted either. There's a surprisingly deep rot in many parts of science. There are strong incentives to publish, and a lot of the methods you can use to inflate statistical significance (i.e. p-hacking) are hard to distinguish from publication bias and other innocent explanations for falling outside of statistical expectations.
Preregistration might help, but it doesn't really address the misaligned incentives that are at the heart of academic fraud.
Even articles that publish legit findings tend to embellish data. I do this for a living, I often try to reproduce prominent results, and I regularly see things that are too good to be true. This is bad because it pushes everyone to do the same, as reviewers are now used to seeing perfect and pristine data.
I have been asked to manipulate data a few times in my career. I have always refused, but this came at the cost of internal fights, getting excluded from other projects for being "too idealistic", or missed promotions. Incentives are just perverse. Fraud and dishonesty are rewarded, pretty depressing.
I think academic research is becoming very inefficient, and traditional Academia might eventually become stagnant. If you don't play the game I described above, it is really hard to stay afloat. I guess industrial labs, where incentives are better aligned, might become more attractive. I have seen lots of prominent scientists moving into industrial labs recently, which would be something hard to imagine even a few years back.
Yep. Worse, p-hacking can be done by accident. I mean, the term implies intent, but a dogshit null hypothesis is problematic regardless of whether it is dogshit on purpose or merely due to lack of skill on the part of the researcher. Either way, it pumps publication numbers and dumps publication quality. If 100% of researchers were 100% honest, we would still see this effect boost low-quality research.
That number alone doesn't say much. Yes it sounds like a lot in absolute terms, but consider that four million papers were published in 2023 alone, and a bit less than 70 millions since 1996 [1].
this isn't a big deal since no one reads most of those papers, it's mostly invisible sacrifice to the metrics gods. Very prominent papers like the one discussed, on the other hand, have much bigger consequences
Yes, very serious consequences indeed. (Note, I did my best to back up my statements with high quality unbiased factual references. Please read them before disagreeing with my description of the result.)
I’m 100% in agreement that there is a massive reproducibility crisis in science and that the publish-or-perish model is broken.
But, for completeness, paper retractions can happen for many reasons, not all of them nefarious, though it could be that most retractions are from authors trying to game the system and getting called out. For example, if the terms of using a certain data set change, you could be required to retract your paper and remove that data from the analysis.
Maybe retraction is something that should be something done in competitive fashion with negatve points awarded to researchers, universities and journals.
I really hope these past eight months cement the idea in more peoples head that the stock market has little correlation to reality.
It fluctuates based on personal sentiment from institutions and money managers. Political policies may drive the market to react in a certain way from time to time but the only real 'direct' effects come from whichever Fed Chair is appointed at the time.
Of course stocks have real tangible value or else we wouldn’t be able to buy and sell them. They’re not something that you barter with.
However, the majority of Americans do not associate stocks with voting rights. Only a slim minority of Americans own stocks to begin with!
Most laymen investors or readers believe that the stock market is an indication of how well our economy is doing — which it’s not.
The value of the stock market, like you said, is based on the buyers expectations. Which is what I said: the market is controlled by institutions and money managers. Those are the majority of your buyers.
Barely half have some sort of 401k program and the average holding amount is only $40,000. Nothing to really gloat about.
Earners of $100,000/year or more have 5x the amount in holdings as compared to those earning $99,000 or below.
Only 14% of Americans are invested in individual stocks outside of a 401k program.
401k assets only amount to 17% of the total US retirement.
None of these numbers tell a great story because Americans are not saving for retirement. If they are, they’re barely saving a years worth of their salary.
I agree it’s sad how far this world is from perfection, and that so many don’t know about the benefits of owning capital.
I wish I could convince people to spend only half of what they spend on weed and alcohol on buying stocks - it would be of great benefit to the masses. How can we show them the benefits?
You're talking past the point under discussion, to wit:
>the stock market has little correlation to reality... It fluctuates based on personal sentiment from institutions and money managers
>a slim minority of Americans own stocks to begin with...
>most laymen investors or readers believe that the stock market is an indication of how well our economy is doing — which it’s not.
And therefore an improved stock market does not equate to an improved 'economy', and therefore it is incorrect to credit Donald Trump with an improved economy purely because tax cuts to the rich may have bumped the stock market. What on Earth does your comment have to do with that?
>but policy-wise he didn't really make any horrible decisions.
This is where the problem lies within our current political discourse: both parties have fundamental differences within themselves on what they view as being morally on the up-and-up.
Both parties view certain demographics in their own way and this allows them to engage in policies that allow them to accomplish their end goal while never causing harm -- because they genuinely believe they are not causing harm to anyone. They're only following through on policies that match their moral compass.
Until this country has a reckoning on what its fundamental
values should be, there will always be a sense of distrust and skepticism between each other.
> Until this country has a reckoning on what its fundamental values should be, there will always be a sense of distrust and skepticism between each other.
Do we need to agree on fundamental values? How might it be possible to avoid reaching a (likely impossible) agreement?
There needs to be some unified national bent, but I think consensus is an entirely unrealistic expectation for the union.
Ultimately, I think the most viable path forward is a cultural reprivileving of state and local politics over national-level politics, and to rehabilitate our national mythology (half the country thinks we're a divine gift, and the other thinks we're a physical manifestation of every sin in Western history).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure if that's a more realistic path than any other at this point. The development and expansion of our bureaucracies under executive control makes the federal government too easy and tempting a tool for the imposition of any one faction's agenda upon all other states.
Perhaps we may not need to agree on every topic but there must be a discourse happening between each other in good faith. This rarely happens in our current political climate as most people (using Twitter as a sample group) is hyperreactive to any sort of criticism from their opponent.
If we, or all nations, want to come together, our first step is to recognize the importance of the United Nations. If we are able to understand that the United Nations can be an apolitical checks and balance to all countries, it may be a major step forward.
An ideal theory is that all countries begin living by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1]. Incorporate this into the foundation of your countries government and it sets a tone and example for which type of moral values you prioritize within your borders.
> If we, or all nations, want to come together, our first step is to recognize the importance of the United Nations.
Interesting that the other response to my post (thus far) essentially argues for the opposite. That a re-emphasis on local politics would be preferable.
Personally, I think letting people go there own way as much as possible is the best course, and empowering the United Nations is pretty much the opposite of that. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of good stuff in the Declaration of Human Rights, but to have a super-ordinate body that is in no way directly accountable to the people over whom it rules, and which attempts to reconcile increasingly disparate cultures, will result in authoritarianism and war.
> Personally, I think letting people go there own way as much as possible is the best course, and empowering the United Nations is pretty much the opposite of that.
As in a Native American reservation type of self localized governing? That’s the only way I could see any good coming from separating each individual locality apart and attaching their own executive branch to it. We currently have 50 seperate states which almost govern in that way but they still must answer to an executive branch and that can be confusing.
Should one branch have a say in all local decisions? Who gets to decide on which person makes those decisions for all? My fear would be that governing completely independent of any other branch could also lead to authoritarianism: if one person persuades the locals they have the best mind to guide them through troubles, they’d ultimately have the final say in decision making once they gain their trust and the ability to govern.
(Apologies if formatting makes it sound confusing, I jumped off my laptop and am instead currently using mobile. Will edit to clarify any discrepancies.)
I posted my reply to the parent comment before seeing yours, and I have to say that the second paragraph you write articulates many of my objections to the UN in a succinct way that I've long struggled to achieve.
The parent comment is concerning American domestic cohesion. A tricky problem in and of itself.
To your point, I'm not sold that all nations ought to come together into a unified state. Least of all beneath the banner of the UN, which has hardly shown itself to be apolitical (its very mission presumes a specific cultural and political end).
Articles 7, 13, 26(2), 29(3) are non-starters for much of the country (myself included). As I read them, they have significant implications for national sovereignty.
Reeder was a great app even when used on the iPhone 4, granted it was the best one out as the time. I believe Reeder 3 was the final version I bought before phasing out of using RSS. My Main Twitter account was started in 2009 so I think it’s fair to say that by 2013 there was more interesting real-time coverage becoming readily available through other sources instead of a RSS feed.
Now, as someone who has not used RSS since then, do all or many websites still have/advertise RSS feeds? I imagine each section now has their own obscure URL instead of a main feed hidden away in menus but I don’t know. Or if modern apps have a Internet-wide search where you can simply time in “News Site X” and it’ll populate their feeds.
Twitter has become easy to digest but I’d much rather prefer my news coming in vanilla again.
I don’t think they should or ever will step away from wood bats. It’s one of the few things that levels the playing field for all batters; instead letting brute force be the power behind the contact.
Aluminum and corked bats would ultimately give an unfair advantage to the user as compared to a wood slugger. It’s fine in minor league and collegiate sports as they do not follow the MLB’s stricter regulations but if they plan to aim for the major leagues, they should start training with wood.
—
On second thought, I think the only time there would be a change is if there were a noticeable impact on the environment and the amount of word being cut to produce bats. But since America’s trademark sport is baseball, I do not see this happening any time soon.
Aluminum and corked bats also become a player safety issue in the majors. It's already a problem at all levels honestly, but the balance would be far more dangerous increasing already high major league exit velocities.
Wood products harvested sustainably protect forest lands by increasing their economic viability. If forests lose economic value from timber, they are more likely to be clearcut for agriculture.
Edit: maple is also one of the most prevalent commercial timbers in USA, is native in most parts of the country and bat usage is so small a percent of maple consumption as to be effectively 0.
> It surprises me that 5 of 200 that do so well actually enlist.
I’m generalizing here, but: No matter what their score was (high or low), most people are going to take the ASVAB because they want to join the military and reap the benefits of it (i.e. TRICARE, GI bill). We can’t forget that military granted health insurance covers around 3-4% of the total insured (US Census, 2019, p.3)[1]. It is also a heavily road traveled road out of poverty for many POC and low-income students. There’s a reason you see more military recruiters in counties, states, and especially schools which have a overall lower income level. But we must also remember we do not know where their true interests lie. Or if they’d be able to — or even want to — handle efficiently the responsibility of being in a higher education setting as opposed to the more structural hierarchy of the military.
However, this does not take away from the fact that some of those 5 people may have a certain given ability to excel in a field that only the military provides. They may want to take that skill all the way to an Officer position instead of working up a corporate ladder. Say geography for example. Someone may have an educational knack for it and perhaps they change their military career goals toward something more technical (cyber defense, intel) instead of labor intensive (infantry). Either of these career choices would only be possible in a military setting. (Lucrative military contractor and paid mercenary jobs are moot points for this discussion.)
In the end, I do not think the ASVAB should be looked at as a moment of enlightenment the same way the SAT would be. They are serving two different purposes and a majority of people sitting in the recruiters office already have their mind made up; it’s now just a matter of figuring out which base you’re attending for training and how long it’ll last.
I think you’re missing a major point: Not everybody wants to go to college. Yes there are ROTC programs and you’ll be commissioned as an officer after 4 years BUT you still have to attend school.
If someone does not want to attend higher ed, telling them about a stipend and quick ranking will fall on deaf ears. They’re sitting in the recruiters office to find an escape from their current situation and reality. I’d wager most kids do not want to be told “stay in this town for 4 more years and then it’ll be better. Trust me.”
They want to get out NOW and start a new life and a new career. Not be told what they want to do is wrong.
Those programs were one example. There are other paths, like trade schools, journeyman programs, etc. I'm not missing the point, I talked to some of them. They mostly just didn't know what else to do.
Basically all of it to confirm the notion (in the comment I replied to) that there is talent to be scooped up. Don't let a military recruiter be the only person that offers them something.
A marketing stunt that involved the police conducting a raid on Jason Chen’s home and then barring Gizmodo from future Apple events? Yeah, that’d be one hell of a PR stunt if it was.
They’re incentives were an attempt to change social media with a more refined version of interactions. Of course getting big names on it early on would drive interest. That sort of business behavior was not done in bad faith.
The problem was that it was subscription based. The interactions between its users were thought out and professional. The trade of journalism itself had nothing to do with its failures — people did not have interest in paying for something they could do for free on Twitter.
> Reddit's ban today is the equivalent of them saying "You can't quit, you're fired!".
This implies the Reddit ban is directed toward TD specifically, which it’s not. This is Reddit taking a long-term stance on what type of content they want on their platform. To sit here and downplay its importance is a predictable talking point and just as depressing.
> This is Reddit taking a long-term stance on what type of content they want on their platform.
It's hard to take that "long-term stance" seriously when they basically make policies up as they go along. Now they're telling us that they want to make the site free of hate against identifiable groups - except if that group is in the majority, then the policy doesn't apply and it's 100% okay to whip up hate against them! Yay nihilists and misanthropes, I guess? Isn't that a bit ludicrous?
The online digital textbooks and homework, Cengage’s MindTap, requires flash for their statistics portion. Flash is also used for their digital textbook.
I’ll assume this carries over for any type of assignment page that requires input from the user.
WebAssign dropped Flash (at least for Chemistry) last year, including the fancy organic molecule input system. I haven’t seen Flash in any of the online courses I’ve taken since 2016 or so (and some of those sites are pretty archaic).
