Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

psypost.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 357 posts

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#141

Post by kortilla »

greesil wrote: post #74
hdlothia wrote: post #6

It would be nice if scientists started being just scientists again instead of activists. Hopefully being cloistered on bluesky will bring the old vibes back

Science was defunded by politics, and sometimes is political due to existing interests. Why shouldn't scientists talk about politics?

Lack of self control or awareness. People make the mistake of thinking that because they are informed on one topic that happens to be political that their opinions on other political topics are relevant.

I’m fine seeing scientists arguing for the importance of science on social media. I don’t want to hear rants about LGBTQ+ people from geologists.

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#142

Post by roughly »

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #116
roughly wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Climate change - School shootings - Sure, they can shut up - COVID - Is this one serious?

Ah I see. So you want to use "science" to push particular political remedies to your pet issues.

Oh I mean I don’t care if the teacher is for or against school shootings, I just find it interesting to have subject matter experts share their knowledge and give their opinions on things that impact their field. Some people just don’t take it well when those opinions don’t line up with their own on contentious topics.

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#143

Post by pfraze »

tptacek wrote: post #111

I don't understand how Bluesky is going to continue to exist past 2026, based on the sharply declining usage, their headcount, and the amount of funding they've taken. It has apparent value propositions past the social network, but none of those use cases are visibly taking off and none of them appear to be monetizable. The social network itself is what will be evaluated when they go out for more funding. And I don't…

We have multiple years of runway

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#144

Post by rdiddly »

fishgoesblub wrote: post #4

If only Bluesky could be as decentralised as the Fediverse [0] Trading one corporate overlord for another is not the smartest play. [0] https://arewedecentralizedyet.online/

Bluesky is a public benefit corp which at least nominally means they don't have to maximize shareholder value at the expense of everything else.

Decentralization is not a priority for most people. If anything, they actively want centralization, because it's easier. To get those people to decentralize, the solution will have to be dead easy and invisible. The AT Protocol being developed by the Bluesky people looks promising.

I don't work for Bluesky, I'm not on Bluesky, and I don't particularly care, but I found your comment unfair after reading about ATProto on HN literally yesterday.

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#145

Post by kortilla »

matwood wrote: post #56
glitchc wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. Good science requires objective thinking and evidence-based reasoning. Claims must be proven, not accepted based on authority or prima facie evidence.

Unfortunately, social media or whatever has changed science communication . A scientist can do amazing science, have total evidence based reasoning and then be completely ignored because some quack tells a good story on Rogan.

That doesn’t matter and it’s not any different than 20 years ago. New findings could be published in medical journals that nobody in the public hears about and some quack on Howard Stern could spew to millions.

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#147

Post by DonHopkins »

hdlothia wrote: post #58
parrellel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are planning on de-orbiting weather satellites because the administration doesn't believe in climate change. Nature was maybe on to something.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01537-5 . One study says the endorsement had little effect on voting intention but damaged credibility and perception of scientists.

Then why is it that YOU are working so hard to damage the credibility and perception of scientists?

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#148

Post by shrinks99 »

tptacek wrote: post #111

I don't understand how Bluesky is going to continue to exist past 2026, based on the sharply declining usage, their headcount, and the amount of funding they've taken. It has apparent value propositions past the social network, but none of those use cases are visibly taking off and none of them appear to be monetizable. The social network itself is what will be evaluated when they go out for more funding. And I don't…

Sharply declining usage? I don't see the stats to back that up on https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats

Usage has absolutely declined from peak switching periods where inevitibly some users won't stick around, but that's to be expected. Most stats seem to be leveling off (which isn't exactly stable growth either so the rest of your points stand).

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#149

Post by armchairhacker »

raincole wrote: post #126
armchairhacker wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't scientists publish anonymously? We already have double-blind peer review. This seems like such an obvious idea, there must be some issue. Authors can still get reputation, recognition, and compensation for their papers, without people knowing who wrote what paper, via public/private keys and blockchain. Every time an author publishes a paper, they generate a new address and attach the public key to it. Judg…

How to force not only one, but three solutions into a non-existing problem. This must be a parody of cryto bros/AI bros, right.

Those may not be the solutions, but the problem certainly exists. I'm in academia and even I'll admit it has a lot of nepotism. People who are famous or infamous are identified despite peer-review (stylometry and subject) and the reviewers are biased for or against them. Also see comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45396377#45396617: "It’s basically impossible to make a career as a scientist these days without constantly promoting yourself and your work unfortunately". If attaching your name to a paper becomes taboo, perhaps promotion will be less important, and if results can be judged algorithmically, definitely so.

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#150

Post by ebiester »

armchairhacker wrote: post #117
hdlothia wrote: post #6

It would be nice if scientists started being just scientists again instead of activists. Hopefully being cloistered on bluesky will bring the old vibes back

Why don't scientists publish anonymously? We already have double-blind peer review. This seems like such an obvious idea, there must be some issue. Authors can still get reputation, recognition, and compensation for their papers, without people knowing who wrote what paper, via public/private keys and blockchain. Every time an author publishes a paper, they generate a new address and attach the public key to it. Judg…

1. It's a very small community and peer review is even hard. Think about it this way: what do you think two physicist colleagues talk about at a conference? How do you know who to talk to to collaborate on a problem? (Yes, people still talk voice about problems.)

2. Labs are specialized. You choose a lab to work at based on what they're working on. How are you going to choose where to spend your Ph.D or postdoc if you don't know what the lab is working on and how productive it is?

3. We are all still humans. We are wired to know the social systems around us. This would be an entire charade.

Post reply on HN