I feel he was just unusually stupid enough to explicitly put in writing what many academics subtly and implicitly do. People cite their friends, others in the field (with an implicit quid pro quo), etc... even if the research cited has only a tenuous connection to the current paper.
The whole practice of citations is very strange. Many times, I have seen researchers search for works to cite at the time of writing! The top Google result gets cited, without the person having even read the paper before, as all they were looking for was a cite for a pretty generic claim (e.g., machine learning has been applied to health care). I'm not sure that such citations are even bad practice as statements should be evidenced by cites. But as a result, a paper getting cited (e.g., the top ranked Google search for ML and Cancer) doesn't actually mean that the cited paper truly means anything, is credible, or a meaningful scientific contribution.
I think point of origin makes a huge amount of sense. All the actual cells of the cancer will be of the origin type! E.g., even if it is in the brain it is still a clump of lung tissue cells.
not much you can do about water that's under the bridge, I think at this point he's like to get to step one "get out of prison because I'm innocent", at that point he can get possible compensation, which is pretty low in texas.
I think this article makes a good point: the point in the title.
I find the intro almost made me not want to read the article though, as it has this long segue dunking (in a way unrelated to the main point) on some arbitary person who made the mistake of the title.
E.g., '''"it’s more than a little presumptuous to then claim that people on Gessen’s (pro-Palestine) side of the argument are “just much better informed”'''
I don't know who Gessen is, and not knowing who they are, the authors take is, to me, odd and mean spirited. Gessen, at least as quoted in the article, isn't making the point that their side is "much better informed." They actually say that their friends (who support their side) are more informed than their wife's friends (who support the other side) on this particular topic. This is a judgement on two friendship groups that they (Gessen) have first-hand experience of.
Gessen also makes some later points about how people aren't appearing to think during the congressional hearing. But none of the quoted text reaches the arrogance of characterizing all of their side as enlightened and all opposition as ignorant.
I am surprised that 1 million allegedly buys that level of corruption and influence.
It seems strange it would only cost 1 million to make the association a corporate shrill for Stevia when diabetes as an issue costs billions to the US.
If you're going to forgo your princibles and be corrupt then at least get higher price for doing so!
I support this move. It seems pretty naive to me for people to whine about this ban curbing free speech or fairness when TikTok can directly be used by a belligerent superpower (China) to undermine those values.
Do we have proof of that though. Other than "China bad" and the parent company being partially owned by China. It's really banning it on a hypothetical and TikTok doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are many other platforms and I would argue that X does more censorship than TikTok does.
Yeah, I think there is lots evidence that social media companies use their platform to support favourable narratives. X is one example.
X spinning a pro X narrative is problematic, just as it is bad Facebook hid their problem with teenage mental health, etc... all these types of things are problematic and can often harm people and society.
The reason TikTok is a greater concern is that TikTok is fully controlled by China, and that hence it is not just pro TikTok narratives that might be amplified but any narrative China wants to amplify. The risks are greater, and the existing mitigations are weaker as the company isn't US owned.
If you ask me, the US in recent history has had incredibly anemic corporate regulation, and there should be a lot more intervention to prevent companies acting nefariously.
And that's sufficiently concerning to nip this in the bud now. It is either happening or could be made to happen with ease and neither of those are good outcomes.
The whole practice of citations is very strange. Many times, I have seen researchers search for works to cite at the time of writing! The top Google result gets cited, without the person having even read the paper before, as all they were looking for was a cite for a pretty generic claim (e.g., machine learning has been applied to health care). I'm not sure that such citations are even bad practice as statements should be evidenced by cites. But as a result, a paper getting cited (e.g., the top ranked Google search for ML and Cancer) doesn't actually mean that the cited paper truly means anything, is credible, or a meaningful scientific contribution.
reply