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/)O

oyfrog

@ oyfrog @lemmy.world

Posts
0
Comments
54
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Oh to be a gay fish

    Jump

  • Many biologists (myself included) don't anthropomorphize animals because it's impossible to objectively quantify things like "culture". So, my opinion is that some fish change sex, and not their gender (because fish don't have genders, which are human social constructs).

    Happy to be corrected if I'm off-base. I'm not an ichthyologist.

  • Desert lizzard enjoying the California sun.

    Jump

  • Looks like a side blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) to me.

  • Mike Lindell: MyPillow boss loses $2.3m defamation case

    Jump

  • The Midas' touch of Sally shit fingers

  • Is there a song in a foreign language you like the melody to but didnt know the lyrics?

    Jump

  • All of Francoise Hardy's album Soleil. Absolutely lovely singing voice.

  • Painful

    Jump

  • Only in Payne County.

  • How do I identify predatory journals?

    Jump

  • A few points worth clarifying:

    As another user pointed out, pseudoscientific journals and predatory journals aren't the same. As you pointed out, pseudoscientific journals are generally easy to identify because they have a very clearly stated agenda typically. This means they will publish anything that places their ideas in a favorable light and are generally not objective. They tend to push garbage "science".

    Predatory journals are journals and publishing firms that have what is effectively a pay-to-play scheme, where authors are enticed with minimal peer review at relatively high publishing cost. Meaning, any crappy study can/will be published so long as the authors pay the publication cost. There's a list online (Beall's List) of what might be considered predatory.

    Now, I will also point out that the authors paying is not what makes this unethical and damaging to science. The vast majority (if not all) scientific publishing is contingent on the authors paying the publication cost and these costs are going to be especially high in open access journals (e.g. PLoS, which is not predatory). These costs are only incurred when the journal agrees to publish after getting positive recommendations from reviewers. Predatory journals forgo the review, and simply publish.

    Fraudulent work (i.e., faked data) is likely to be present in any reputable journal, albeit at low frequencies. I say "low" because science is increasingly moving toward an open data model of publication where the raw data sets associated with study must be available publicly, including code used to produce results. While there aren't loads of people reanalyzing published datasets, the possibility that someone might could be enough to deter most people from making shit up.

    I wouldn't let the Wakefield example spoil the wealth of good studies that's been published at the Lancet. At this point the only people giving that study any credence are Brain-worms and his ilk. A better bet is to look for retractions issued by the journals. This typically happens in the event of fraud, non reproducibility, fundamental flaws in the study, etc.

    Source: I'm an academic scientist and actively publishing.

    Tldr: look at Beall's list for predatory journals; don't worry too much about fraud in reputable journals; look for retractions if you're really worried.

  • Great submission to "rate my professor"

    Jump

  • Course IDs vary from university to university—when I was an undergrad, lower div classes were <100, upper div between 100 and 199, and grad level classes 200+.

  • A healthy glow

    Jump

  • Translation:

    If someone can be made to smile, let's keep shining, Hanpen.

  • This is my rock. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

    Jump

  • The otter in the OP is a river otter (probably american river otter)—I'm like 90% sure they do not have pockets. The otter in the comment is a sea otter (in case the watermark didn't give that away)—they have skin folds that's often described as pockets near-ish to the armpit.

    Neither of them are marsupials—they both belong to the family Mustelidae (which also include badgers, weasels, etc).

  • Canada goose fights off bald eagle in rare, symbolism-laden battle on ice

    Jump

  • Bald eagles are sometimes considered kleptoparasites, and I've always found that fitting for the USA.

  • How much do you tip at a restaurant?

    Jump

  • 20%—I feel for tip-based workers, but I'm also not running charity nor am I in a financial place in life to be tipping much higher than that.

    If 20% is not in the list I will enter 20%.

  • Deleted

    Teen son (16) has stopped wearing deodorant cause it's "not manly"...

    Jump

  • I'm genuinely curious what that means. What does it mean to "be manly"? Is it bad to not "be manly"? Along a similar vein, what is the opposite of "being manly"? Who defined the qualities that make a person "manly" (and what authority do they have on the subject)?

  • Romantic

    Jump

  • When you both shit hard enough together at the same time and wonder to yourselves "was that splashback mine...?"

  • Massachusetts city [Worcester] OKs sanctuary city status for transgender community

    Jump

  • If Boston is the armpit of the Commonwealth, Worcester is the butthole.

  • cool yourself off

    Jump

  • Quench your thirst with sausage infused water by throwing a respectable number of Vienna sausages in one of those infuser bottles.

  • Evil genius

    Jump

  • Oh I know this game. I've always thought it would be funny to use raw onions in the place of apples in caramel apples and pass them out on Halloween.

  • What's your favorite unbelievable fact?

    Jump

  • I'm going to qualify this—all vertebrate eyes have a blind spot. Cephalopods also have eyes that are like vertebrates (this type of eye is called 'camera eyes'), but their eye anatomy is such that no blind spot exists for them.

    Piggybacking on your fact about the brain effectively editing what we visually perceive, we don't see our nose (unless you made a concerted effort to look at it) because the brain ignores it.

  • Can we just put them in charge?

    Jump

  • A crow eating chicken and a human eating beef are actually really good parallels. Crows and chicken are 91 million years diverged while cows and humans 94 million years diverged.

  • SeCuRiTy aNd PerForManCe

    Jump

  • CMD ` (backtick) will switch between application windows, if that's what was frustrating you.