Itty53

Ancient. Technology.

That sounds a lot cooler than “civilizations have to do something with their poop”.

I think this is worse, arguably. Don’t get me wrong, Wakefield wasn’t good. But this is actually worse.

Wakefield wanted to call into question a thing which, at the time, was a relatively small thing: the MMR vaccine. There was no political platform of vaccines back then, it was the fallout from his con years after that created that platform. He wanted to do that so he could sell his own snake oil cure-all for autism. He frankly didn’t care about vaccines, he simply knew people were hesitant about shots and overly concerned about normalcy.

So Wakefield really was just a greedy sonuvabitch ready to capitalize on the tremendous effort parents of autistic children are ready to commit for their kids. Bad, but just selfish greed. Not trying to accelerate an already existential crisis for political maga points.

This though, climate change, is already the political platform. This is very clearly an attack on the very institutions of academia themselves. This is trying to discredit the act of collecting data and replicating experiments as real science. And there’s frankly a lot to say about that topic today (p<0.05 apocalypse) but this isn’t saying any of that. It’s simply saying “here’s a reason not to trust climate science at all”. That’s the argument. That’s way more dangerous than anti-vax arguments. Thank God this instance was as ineffective as it was.

Silver lining, it took almost ten years for Wakefield to get caught and detracted. This didn’t take long to catch at all because the guy who did it was smug about his shitty goal, in typical right winger fashion: he went and published an opinion piece on his own paper, to the surprise of even his co-author.

This has big “I voted the general election in three states and then complained about voting security on Fox News” energy.

Had the same thought. Got sidetracked sniffing pens.

Jokes aside, any of y’all remember the scented markers for kids? Holy shit talk about grooming children for addictions. Whole classrooms of kids just sniffing chemical markers. The gas station rose vial of the kindergarten.

Yeah this all smacks hard of a con then. You don’t publish except to get replication. That’s the entire point.

Publishing while being intentionally vague about replication is a huge red flag.

By positing it as the reality and not just a reality that we can actually change, you’re playing defense for em. You’re using their talking points.

BTW You don’t have to be debating the finer points of morality to be doing something immoral. Corporatists don’t debate morality either. Because they know they lose, every time. Hint hint.

No that’s what got us here. Profit above all else brought us where we are, it can’t bring us back. Apologies for being blunt but that’s a stupid thought you shared.

At this point doing something that you’re unsure whether it will make things better or worse is literally a better option than just nothing. I mean really what’s the worst thing that happens? The equivalent of an oil spill? Like that’s ever stopped us from doing things for profit? Why should we hold ourselves to these “better be entirely certain” standards when we never held ourselves to that standard on the way here?

This is a legitimate train of thought. “This might hurt things but I’m not sure how” simply isn’t good enough. Give me a reason to be afraid to use this. Cause we’re not afraid of using oil yet. Fuck it let’s put a bunch of iron in the oceans. Really can’t hurt things any worse than we have, can it?

Note that the guy said if it gets peer reviewed. Many people have made many claims that would’ve changed the world as we know it, but until it gets repeated in controlled environments it doesn’t change anything.

I think it’s an achievable goal for sure. There’s nothing I know of that makes room temperature anything but arbitrary so it could happen. If it did, yeah it changes a lot potentially.

I mean yeah, you just said it… the researcher didn’t discover a thing, they categorized it.

Which doesn’t sound nearly as noble and cool does it?

Also, nothing is done “in the name of science”. Science is a process of observation, not a philosophy or ideology. It isn’t a religion or a monarchy. You would no sooner do something “in the name of addition” than you would for science.

I read an article, a recent one, about a kind of tree being “discovered” by some European research team. Within the article, it said the people who lived in that particular forest had known about that kind of tree for ages. They had multiple names for it, uses, etc.

Yet without any irony at all … They attributed the “discovery” to this European researcher.

Big “I’m the main character” energy here. Enjoy yourself, because people around you don’t.

Just an inbox that forwards to Elon so he can laugh at inquiries. Jokes aside, they moved on this one because she was caught as a fake in big and loud fashion (WaPo) and if Twitter didn’t, they couldn’t keep up any appearance of bipartisanship. WaPo would’ve just beat the drum louder. This way Twitter hardly even has to comment, and they can deny they promoted the account.

Are you admitting you don’t even contribute and yet you deign to judge the people who do?

A fake person affected public opinion by interacting with real people, which is only made possible by society’s current relationship with social media. This was done presumably to incite and rage bait for the opposition and supposedly by an outside nation actor, making this an act of cyber warfare. One of many we’ve seen, and more each day. And guess what? The way you combat that kind of information war is by informing the public, especially that circle of people who actually build these technologies (soooo this sub, pretty much).

It is absolutely not redundant to call it a technology topic. How society interacts with and is affected by technology is an exceedingly important topic within technology and it’s continued development it we want it to be for the betterment of humanity and not the enslavement of it. Technology isn’t just how the electrons move, that’s literally only a teensy tiny part of it.

Be the change you want to see then brother, post what quality content you think ought to be seen and shared. You’re allowed to.

There you go again, pretending technology only has to do with the next breakthrough. I mean did you read what I wrote? I literally talked about that explicitly.

Technology is technology. If it’s relevant today then why shouldn’t it be here? If the US was constructing water wheels again all of the sudden it would be a technology topic and relevant to this sub.

If you don’t like it and you’re leaving, great. There’s the door, what makes you think anyone cares? Or ought to?

Imagine being so inundated in social media that you don’t even recognize it as technology anymore.

It’s the same post. You commented here twice. Which is ironic in hilarious ways. I guess you don’t quite understand this technology…

Faking a person in the digital world and then using that likeness to affect real world politics has everything to do with technology by the way. We don’t only discuss the bleeding edge of new consumer toys, it’s a pretty broad topic. And politics being the process of how people function together in society … I mean it’s gonna be everywhere.

If you want to unsubscribe I guess, bye.