@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 3 months agoResourcesmander.xyzimagemessage-square252fedilinkarrow-up1884arrow-down146
arrow-up1838arrow-down1imageResourcesmander.xyz@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 3 months agomessage-square252fedilink
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish14•3 months agoMaybe you should read the paper and find out.
minus-square@brianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglish-4•edit-23 months agoWhy? I’m not the one using it to justify an argument.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish14•3 months agoBecause it would be a more efficient way to understand their actual methodology than posting random guesses on a comment thread?
minus-square@brianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglish-3•3 months agoIt’s not my job to make your point. You don’t get free labor.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish6•3 months agoIt’s not my job to read papers for you. You don’t get free labor
minus-square@brianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglish-2•3 months agoSo you didn’t read it either? Interesting.
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish4•3 months agoNope, guess you’re going to have to read it yourself to find out if they’re assuming instant, frictionless transport of goods.
minus-square@brianary@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglish-1•2 months agoIf it’s not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it?
minus-squareBodyBySisyphus [he/him]linkfedilinkEnglish3•2 months agoMy position was that you might actually learn something if you read the article, but I think you’ve provided sufficient evidence that I was wrong.
Maybe you should read the paper and find out.
Why? I’m not the one using it to justify an argument.
Because it would be a more efficient way to understand their actual methodology than posting random guesses on a comment thread?
It’s not my job to make your point. You don’t get free labor.
It’s not my job to read papers for you. You don’t get free labor
So you didn’t read it either? Interesting.
Nope, guess you’re going to have to read it yourself to find out if they’re assuming instant, frictionless transport of goods.
If it’s not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it?
My position was that you might actually learn something if you read the article, but I think you’ve provided sufficient evidence that I was wrong.