*nobel memorial laureate. This is exactly why people get annoyed with the branding of the bank of Sweden’s economics prize. We have yet to see the prize for chemistry awarded for research that does not reproduce.

As one of the professors I had undergrad classes with liked to say "Economics is the only field where you can be awarded the Nobel prize for showing A and then next year someone gets a Nobel prize for showing not A".

The peace prize is awarded to warmongers all the time though.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

You can find, maybe, three or four such recipients out of 100. And they usually did make peace, even if they previously or later made mistakes.

Obama.

I suppose to be fair to the field of economics, the replication issues were mainly with research in psychology (as I recall).

On the other hand, does economics have less of a replication issue because it’s basically unreplicable?

> We have yet to see the prize for chemistry awarded for research that does not reproduce.

Maybe, but e.g. Millikan's prize for physics was on the basis of results that appear to have been at least partially fabricated.

Was it? I thought Millikan's measurement had a minor error from an incorrect viscosity of air, and several other researchers' subsequent measurements were fabricated to agree with Millikan's.

That also happened, but there are suspicious patterns in Millikan's data considered in isolation.

The Magic Leap was around 30 pixels per degree when it was still sold. https://kguttag.com/2022/01/31/magic-leap-2-at-spie-ar-vr-mr...

That was a tabloid page turner of an arxiv preprint. Really nice mixed methods research paper that conveys the depth of these scams.

I too have always found this strange but I have never found a solid reason. Having an explicit declaration of intent is not a terrible feature in a data type so this is not exactly a bad choice. Also this means that a camera roll from a single sensor can be stored as an array in C since every image has the exact same size. It also does make life easier for the camera developers (but harder for photo viewer developers). If anyone knows the history here I would actually really be interested.

I find this attitude to be really frustrating. Based on my experiences teaching math a student is not going to learn how to do the impressive things that you might call thinking if they don't have a solid foundation in how to do the basics. Imagine saying that learning the alphabet or spelling rules is just rote memorization and therefore not worth doing. If a person needs to spend all of their brain power thinking through elementary operations then they will have very little left over for the things that we might call thinking. I have seen too many kids who struggle with Algebra not because they can't understand the concepts but because they cannot do basic things like multiply 3x4 without needing to add 3 to 3 to 3 to 3.

I didn't say learning the basics was a bad thing...

I said memorization wasn't important...

I find it frustrating people argue against points that were never made.

This really isn’t fair. It is not simply hope and pray: it is a clearly stated/enforced deterrent that anyone who violates the policy will be terminated. You lose your income and seriously harm your future career prospects. This is more or less the same policy that governments hold to bad actors (crime happens but perpetrators will be punished). I get that it is best to avoid the possibility of such incidents but it is not always practical and a strong punishment mechanism is a reasonable policy in these cases.

You don't think it's fair to expect a trillion-dollar business to implement effective technical measures to stop rogue (or hacked!) employees from accessing personal information about their users?

I'm not talking about small businesses here, but large corporations that have more than enough resources to do better than just auditing.

> crime happens but perpetrators will be punished

Societies can't prevent crime without draconian measures that stifle all of our freedoms to an extreme degree. Corporations can easily put barriers in place that make it much more difficult (or impossible) to gain unauthorized access to customer information. The entire system is under their control.

Okay, how do you want to implement those technical measures? I propose that we add a checkbox, for employees to click when they have gone rogue, or have been hacked. That way, when the box is checked, we can just reject those requests as being bad/wrong/illegal. Simple as that!

There may be some details with the implementation of this, but once we've got that check box, then things will be secure.

Or maybe trillions of dollars can't change digital physics. I don't care how much money you have, you can't make water not be wet.

For $500 you may as well spend an extra $100 and get a Mac mini with an m4 chip and 256gb of ram and avoid the headaches of coordinating 4 machines.

I don't think you can get 256 gigs of ram in a mac mini for $600. I do endorse the mac as an AI workbench tho

Agreed. These services offer a lot of valuable social infrastructure, and it would be nice to keep the good and stop the bad.

On a personal level I do something like this on my home router by adding latency to specific websites and I totally recommend this to anyone trying to cut the habit. A few hundred ms of extra latency can really kill the doomscroll’s grip while still giving you access to messages from friends. Doing this is also not too hard to configure using a pi hole and some vibe networking.

This is kind of an unreasonable request. The OP is making claim of a general trend not obscure and subtle bias on any single article. Informally the claim feels true from my experience with Wikipedia and it makes sense that a small number of editors would have a wider bias. Just think central limit theorem here.

It's not an unreasonable request to ask for one example of a trend. It's unreasonable to make a claim with no evidence.

I think your link is broken. Need to scroll past a more recent article on an incident of 19th century American history before the target article on botanicals and golf balls.

I clicked again on the link I posted to make sure it’s correct (https://worldhistory.substack.com/p/plastic-before-plastic) and it brought me directly to the blog post without needing to scroll through anything else. Wondering where the link you clicked on dumped you into?

I think they just missed the segue from the intro (about the caning of Charles Sumner) to the body of the article (about gutta-percha).

The two are only tangentially related in that the cane happened to be made of gutta-percha, and its easy to miss the sentence where they mention this because it's sandwiched between a large image and a form to subscribe to the newsletter.

Yeah my bad. I saw the substack subscribe footer followed by the full Gutta Percha section and figured that it was a separate article. In my defense that was a very circuitous lead in.

Link worked correctly for me

Link works fine.