Companies don’t make laws (unless you live somewhere like the US); people do. If the people say “stop fucking around and rent-seeking” then companies should have to do that. It’s pretty simple, really. Just because you build your own hardware and software doesn’t give you the right to do whatever you want.
Email isn’t instant. It is usually delayed by 30-40s, but quite often gets into the 20-30 minutes range. Hell, a few weeks ago it took 6 hours to get the login verification emails for my epic games account and couldn’t login.
Emails don’t bounce until they haven’t been able to be delivered for DAYs. With an “s,” so you won’t even know there is a delay until the message doesn’t even matter anymore.
Welcome to the world of email. "time-sensitive emails" are NOT a thing, do not rely on emails for any time-sensitive information. Emails may take DAYS to deliver and there is nothing you can do about it.
There's this guy I usually have on in the background on youtube who replicates chemistry experiments -- or attempts to. It's pretty rare to see him find a paper that doesn't exaggerate yields or go into enough details, and he has to guess things.
I did a lot of chemistry for a year when I worked as a QA for a pharmaceuticals company before going to uni.
So much so that when I did Chemistry at uni I got asked if I was cheating a few times in labs, until I explained.
It's actually really hard to get any experiment perfect the first time.
Even with a year's practice of measuring and mixing and titration and all the other skills you need, I'd still get low yields, or bad results occasionally. Better than everyone else, but still not perfect.
I also noticed that the more you do a particular process, the better results you will get. Just like practicing a solo on an instrument lots, or a particular pool shot, or cooking a particular meal. There's a level of learning and experience needed for each process, not all chemistry in general.
Either you publish the range of results, the average plus standard deviation or average plus standard deviation of a subset with the exclusion criteria and exclusion range. Picking a result is a lie, plain and simple, and messiness is not an excuse.
As an aside, I'm working at a QC chem lab now, with results that have a direct impact on revenue calculations for clients. Therefore the reports go to accountants, therefore error bars dont't exist. We recently had a case where we reported 41.7 when the client expected 42.0 on a method that's +/- 1.5... They insisted we remeasure because our result was "impossible" The repeat gave 42.1, and the client was happy to be charged twice
Truck passing by on the nearby road? Oops, my physics experiment got shaken, results look messy. Lab animal caught a cold? Oops, genetics experiment now has messy data. Atmosphere is turbulent and some shitty starlink satellite passed by at the wrong moment? Oops, my stellar spectra are messy now. Imperfection in my test ingot? Oops, now my tensile strength measurements have messy data because a few ripped too early...
It is the nature of experimental science to deal with messiness. And dealing with it means being honest about it. You write it like it happened, find the problems in the messy parts of your data, exclude that and explain the why and how. Hand-picked results and just omitting data you find inconvenient is not science, its fraud.
When I am allowed to just pick one result I can show you a perpetuum mobile, cold fusion, superhuman intelligence in mice and tons of other newsworthy things...
I've done scientific work in science. I've been paid for it, but by a public university, so not "commercial" in the strictest sense of the word.
Do you mean to suggest that "commercial work" in science takes shortcuts and ignores the essentials of the scientific method? Do you mean to suggest that commercial science or at least commercial chemistry writing science-like papers are all misrepresenting their results systematically? Do you think the standards for good scientific conduct do not apply to chemists or commercially working scientists? Because any of that would mean that "commercial work" in science is just fraud dressed up as science.
And yes of course an experienced experimenter will get better, easier, more consistent results, everyone knows that. The issue is not about that at all. The issue is about suppressing results and data that you don't like. Those maybe result from initial inexperience or bad luck, normal variations in measurements or whatever. You present all your data, with statistics, with an explanation, and if that explanation is "well, the initial 20 values are excluded from the reported average because of me being heavy-handed with the frobnicator" then that is fine. People can check your values, your reasoning and convince themselves that your reporting is right and your experiment works to the extend you reported. If you just say "the yield is 89%" without mentioning that all the other yields were worse, without mentioning any kind of variance, range, exclusions, you are lying. Those 89% were your single best yield, since they were best you were never able to reproduce that, so it might as well have been leftover product from improperly cleaning your glassware...
Are you really trying to convince me that all chemists are crooked like that? Or all commercial work in science is crooked?
Compare the yields in a typical JACS (or any high end journal) paper versus those in OrgSyn and I think it's pretty clear that yields in many papers are more than exaggerated. It's a single untraceable number and the outcome of your PhD depends on it - the incentive is very clear. Leave a bit of DCM in, weigh, high vac to get rid of the singlet at 5.30ppm and no one's any the wiser...
Was it perhaps "that chemist"? He has some decent videos on complete bogus papers but I don't think he does reproductions, I'd be interested in that channel if you happen to find it in your watch history.
Def not universal. It annoys me to no end when I need to cross-compile on my windows machine so the content guys at my company can use it, and then I have to walk them through how to allow their machine to actually run it. God forbid someone wants to just run internally developed software on their own hardware.
Isn’t this more a problem with Apple’s application security than the CPU architecture? You’d be jumping through the same hoops to run unsigned software if it was still Intel.
I didn't realize there were still companies doing this. What sort of use case is it where a cross platform desktop app is chosen over a web app or a webview?
We are operating on content on physical portable hardrives from the studio. A webapp would be pointless and inefficient (these videos are hundreds of gbs). Most of the internal software we write for our content team is basically glorified macros. They need to adjust 100's of videos sometimes, and doing it one by one would take months. If they can define what needs to be done, an engineer can usually get it done in a few hours or days instead of weeks.
No surprise there. They don't typically accept third party PRs, and instead open a competing PR to address the issue.
reply