Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)D
Posts
4
Comments
151
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • I sincerely appreciate your effort to relate your perspective. I think I did originally interpret the comment how you described, but I over thought it and wondered if there was a connection I was unaware of.

  • I don't disagree with your general point. But finding a new source of Helium, regardless of the rate of use, is a good thing.

    That aside -- are you saying Helium is related to climate change? Curious to know how, if so.

  • Ah yes, we're wasting helium, so finding more isn't a good thing. Of course. 🙄

  • I brought it up purely as speculation, as one possible explanation for why the process was not properly followed. I don't have any experience with publishing companies, whether for science journals or otherwise.

  • A few things came together for me here.

    The paper had two reviewers, one in India and one based in the U.S.

    .

    "...a reviewer of the paper had raised concerns about the AI-generated images that were ignored."

    .

    ...the U.S.-based reviewer who said that they evaluated the study based solely on its scientific merits and that it was up to Frontiers whether or not to publish the AI-generated images...

    .

    "The authors failed to respond to these requests. We are investigating how our processes failed to act on the lack of author compliance... "

    They don't outright say it in the article, but it looks like the reviewer based in India was the one who actually raised concerns about the garbage images. The authors were supposed to respond, but didn't, and the journal published anyway.

    I will readily admit that this is just my own conclusion here, but -- I wonder if there was an element of racism that went into ignoring the reviewer's concerns?

  • ???

  • That does honestly suck. I'm sorry that happened for you, bud. I have some issues with my parents that I'm still working on, it's tough.

  • Oh for God's sake, dude. You're being verifiably ridiculous.

  • I'm in agreement that this stuff is painfully useless.

    But "it couldn't even find the meeting" sounds more like a configuration problem and less like a comment on the product's quality.

  • What? You must be joking. Really? The entire thing was about opt-in error reporting?

    .... seriously, that can't be it, can it?

  • Valid point, thank you for the correction.

  • That's a major part, but the key problem IMO is that the USA has shown multiple times that a change in president can be enough to shatter existing promises and expectations. Even if we got the most progressive, effective president in the history of our nation, anything they accomplished could be undone by a single change of admin.

  • No? It's a cover page for an hour long podcast episode. Not that that's much better, as I am certainly not going to set aside time for that, but it's not "just an ad for a blog that doesn't exist yet".

  • First of all, it's bad form to link a search instead of just saying what you mean.

    Second of all, based on this search, I see that the Biden administration announced they were performing some actions that would prevent medical debt from impacting credit scores. But I don't see anything that indicates this can't just be undone by the next president. Maybe I just don't understand what's being attempted well enough, but I'm sure not getting my hopes up.

  • (And pretty soon that won't be a thing anymore.)

    Uhhh, source?

  • Fun fact, uptime goals are measured in nines -- for example, 99.9% is three nines of uptime. If that one outage lasted an entire day, and they were never down at any other time, that would indeed be three nines of uptime.

  • Was that not something the Wayback Machine could have solved?

  • What a leap, Batman!