I did read that article the first time you linked it. Can you go back and read my reply again? I agreed that there is a problem with reproducibility, but that has nothing to do with a paper where no experiments were done.
This article was supposedly reviewed. The reviewers are listed on the article's web page. This publisher is normally reputable, so I'd tend to believe it, even though the image was obviously not properly scrutinized. The article was also retracted after 3 days. I'm not saying there are no problems with science publications, but the things you are saying are not true for this one case. Also this is a secondary source, so there is no original data here, just an article citing a lot of primary sources to summarize the topic. So, the replication issue doesn't even apply to this paper. Again all valid issues in general, but not so much here...
It's definitely satire. 2 million lines of code is an absurd under-exageration. This post had me looking up the number of possible chess games, because if you coded chess like above you would have to have an if statement for every outcome, and it's 10^120 different possible games.
I need to know as well. This is the kind of shit my wife and I do daily. Haha
If wasting the end pieces of sliced bread upsets you, I've got some devastating news...
Yeah pendulum clocks are the kind of thing where you get a feel for how fast or slow they are between resetting the weight and you make small adjustments to the pendulum when you reset. So many factors involved in the physics that it's never going to be a set it and forget it thing. It does require fewer adjustments once you hone in though
Already some good suggestions about making the litterbox way cleaner than your human senses would be able to appreciate. But I was just wondering if your cat is a tortoise shell? Seems to be a common behavior in those quirky girls.
Haha I love the kind hearted vandalism
Researchgrant
joined 1 year ago
It's like I'm taking to a wall. I completely agree with you that this article is egregious. I'm simply pointing out that your talking points were completely invalid when it comes to this, and bringing up reproducibility and non peer reviewed articles retracts from the point that this article followed those rules and was still published. Blame the reviewers, blame the editor, blame the fame hungry scientists, but bringing up totally unrelated problems with science pubs makes you sound like an idiot, which clearly you are. Go ahead and reply again l. I will not bother reading it.